3 ms·
It's not just my distinction; it's a distinction made in courts too. The law is quite clear. Copyright infringement is not theft. > And, from my perspective, s
by burntsushi 13y ago
It's not just my distinction; it's a distinction made in courts too. The law is quite clear. Copyright infringement is not theft.
> And, from my perspective, something is actually lost, that cannot be replaced. The right of the IP creator to be repaid by the person who grabbed it.
Well, yes... Supposing that IP rights should exist!
Instead of getting dragged into a big long debate, I'll just give you two sources. The first, "Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?" by Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite chronicles the harm brought by IP with real world examples. The second, "Against Intellectual Property" by Stephan Kinsella is a philosophical/libertarian argument.
(The authors of Information Feudalism don't think IP should be abolished, so you may find it more credible.)
- archgrove 13y agoI'll have a look at those, thanks. In response to your points, the language used by courts is exceedingly specific, and bears little resemblance to the language used by people in day to day life. For example, in English law, I can "assault" you without ever having touched you. In fact, if I touch you, it's no longer assault. The dictionary definition, and common use, would require that I do more than look menacingly at you, but in the courts, I would have "assaulted" you. I claim the same holds for theft/stealing in an IP situation. > Well, yes... Supposing that IP rights should exist! Well, of course. But we could have the same debate about property rights, so I could deny that "theft" exists at all, yet the language used to describe theft wouldn't change.
- burntsushi 13y agoYou're basically saying I'm being too pedantic. I recognized that in my initial comment as a potential criticism. I did so for precisely the reasons you have brought up. Why? Because I understand terms can have colloquial and technical meanings. But this does not imply that we shouldn't call attention to technicalities, particularly if it's with respect to an issue one thinks is important. However, you seem to be arguing that even a technical application of theft is applicable to IP. I don't know how to disagree with that without diving into tedious details about what makes "ownership" a viable concept in the first place. Kinsella addresses it in the source I cited in a previous comment. So I defer.
- rhizome 13y agothe language used by courts is exceedingly specific, and bears little resemblance to the language used by people in day to day life. By the same token, the word "theft" implies different forms of punishment than "copyright infringement" when used by people in day-to-day life. Is this difference in actual usage less important?
- ronaldx 13y agoWe can argue about whether IP rights should exist, but I see this as a separate point. IP rights do exist. The photographers have created and published their work under the expectation that existing IP law will be upheld.
- burntsushi 13y agoI'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. Are you responding to something specific that I said?
- pikachu_is_cool 13y ago> The photographers have created and published their work under the expectation that existing IP law will be upheld. That's tough shit for them, then. Existing IP laws currently are really hard to uphold, and soon they will be literally impossible to enforce. Also, IP is not a right; it's a privilege provided by the government.
- gress 13y agoBy that argument, ownership of possessions is not a right, but a privilege provided by the government, and if a tough guy comes and takes your laptop away from you - tough shit for you.
- burntsushi 13y agoNo. Possessions are a scarce resource that can be defended by the owner. Ideas are not scarce. The only way to "defend" an idea from improper uses in a society is with a coercive entity.
- gress 13y agoDo you live in Somalia?
- burntsushi 13y ago