3 ms·
> theft only exists in the context of existing property rights Of course the law didn’t exist before it was written, but copying others’ content was viewed as
by dahart 4y ago
> theft only exists in the context of existing property rights
Of course the law didn’t exist before it was written, but copying others’ content was viewed as stealing, which is why there was a push to turn it into real, legal theft. Apologies for using shorthand. What words would you have chosen? Maybe you can make my point better than I can, because the law was in fact written in response to an actual problem people had of being able to recoup their investments.
I don’t agree that ‘theft’ requires existing legal property rights to exist, that is not the definition of the word, so your claim is inaccurate. Theft is the act of stealing, which is taking something without permission. It can be one-sided from the perspective of the person who was taken from, and still be theft.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> Of course the law didn’t exist before it was written, but copying others’ content was viewed as stealing, But the first copyright laws in Britain gave no rights at all to creators. They weren’t about moral rights founded in creation of works, the basis of rights was the capital investment of setting up to print the work.
- dahart 4y agoRight yes, to my broad point here that the law’s whole point was to protect profits, and I agree originally it was publisher’s profits not author’s.