8 ms·

Not really. A life is not property. It cannot be acquired or given away. Even if we were to just go along with it and categorize life as personal property, a mu

by chc 12y ago

Not really. A life is not property. It cannot be acquired or given away. Even if we were to just go along with it and categorize life as personal property, a murderer does not take the victim’s life into their possession in any way I can tell. Murder ends life rather than appropriating it, so murder would be destruction of property, not theft.

trhway 12y ago
>Not really. A life is not property. Life of other sentient beings, like dogs or apes, still considered a property. Wrongly so of course. >It cannot be acquired or given away. only for about next 20 or so years until upload and cloned bodies become accessible. The killer (or his insurance) will have to cover repairs or replacement cost in case of "total", and be charged with intentional property destruction if it was intentional.
- venus 12y ago
  > 20 or so years until upload and cloned bodies become accessible That's an... optimistic time frame.
wyager 12y ago
Life can not be acquired or given away more than once (with current technology). But that's not what property means to everyone. For me, property is something that is owned privately, and I claim private ownership of my life.
icebraining 12y ago
Even if we were to just go along with it and categorize life as personal property, a murderer does not take the victim’s life into their possession in any way I can tell. That never stopped copyright holders from calling infringement "theft".
- talmand 12y ago
  If the copyright holder is deprived of resources they otherwise would have received due to the infringement, it is indeed "theft". It wasn't until it could easily be done on a wide scale that such infringement was a real concern.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    That's not how it's seen legally. Dowling explicitly made clear the distinction between theft and infringement. No taking with intent to deprive == No theft. Copyright is unique in that there's no "taking" when you copy something.
    - talmand 12y ago
      The laws can vary from area to area, but a number of them do refer to infringement as a form of theft. Any law that refers to the negative impact of the criminal act to the economy is almost certainly speaking of theft. It might not be literally spelled out as theft, but in most cases it is. Heck, in the US there's a law referred to as the Net Act, which stands for No Electronic Theft Act, that literally names it electronic theft even if there is no monetary gain. EDIT: Which upon reading up on this I'm assuming you mean Dowling vs US from 1985. The Net Act I mentioned was passed in 1997. Plus Dowling is strange, it seems to suggest that copyright infringement isn't theft because the alleged thief didn't steal the actual copyright and didn't deprive the owner of the use of the copyright. The decision didn't seem to have anything to do with the physical materials that were copies, most of which weren't copyrighted to begin with. The "taking" is not the copying, that's a truly sad defense. The taking is depriving the original owner of the resources due them for the time and resources expended during the creation itself. If they created it then they have the right to dictate terms in how you consume it. If you don't agree to the terms then the proper response is to not consume it, not to copy it outright and make some silly claim that they lost nothing because you made a digital copy so that they still have the original.
      - Karunamon 12y ago
        Heck, in the US there's a law referred to as the Net Act, which stands for No Electronic Theft Act This means nothing, and is certainly not a defense to your (and the copyright lobby's) misuse of the word "theft". There is absolutely no requirement that a bill amending the USC be titled anything that has to do with what it actually regulates or contains. The Patriot act has little to do with patriotism... The taking is depriving the original owner of the resources due them for the time and resources expended during the creation itself. A good counterpoint to this: * Inviting a friend or any random person to watch a movie with me: Perfectly legal. * Inviting a friend etc. to watch my entire collection of movies with me: also perfectly legal. * Ripping my own DVDs so I don't have to deal with physical media: Arguably legal and fair use. * Giving that ripped copy to said friend: Copyright violation, and many would argue morally wrong. * Downloading a copy of a movie I already purchased from a torrent site for whatever reason: Also a copyright violation, but few would argue that this is morally wrong somehow. Replace "movie" for "song" or "game" and the same argument holds. Where your logic breaks down is that the net effect to the copyright holder in every one of those scenarios is the same. Someone else enjoyed some product without extra compensation being required.

by chc 12y ago

trhway 12y ago

>Not really. A life is not property. Life of other sentient beings, like dogs or apes, still considered a property. Wrongly so of course. >It cannot be acquired or given away. only for about next 20 or so years until upload and cloned bodies become accessible. The killer (or his insurance) will have to cover repairs or replacement cost in case of "total", and be charged with intentional property destruction if it was intentional.

venus 12y ago
> 20 or so years until upload and cloned bodies become accessible That's an... optimistic time frame.

wyager 12y ago

Life can not be acquired or given away more than once (with current technology). But that's not what property means to everyone. For me, property is something that is owned privately, and I claim private ownership of my life.

icebraining 12y ago

Even if we were to just go along with it and categorize life as personal property, a murderer does not take the victim’s life into their possession in any way I can tell. That never stopped copyright holders from calling infringement "theft".

talmand 12y ago
If the copyright holder is deprived of resources they otherwise would have received due to the infringement, it is indeed "theft". It wasn't until it could easily be done on a wide scale that such infringement was a real concern.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  That's not how it's seen legally. Dowling explicitly made clear the distinction between theft and infringement. No taking with intent to deprive == No theft. Copyright is unique in that there's no "taking" when you copy something.
  - talmand 12y ago
    The laws can vary from area to area, but a number of them do refer to infringement as a form of theft. Any law that refers to the negative impact of the criminal act to the economy is almost certainly speaking of theft. It might not be literally spelled out as theft, but in most cases it is. Heck, in the US there's a law referred to as the Net Act, which stands for No Electronic Theft Act, that literally names it electronic theft even if there is no monetary gain. EDIT: Which upon reading up on this I'm assuming you mean Dowling vs US from 1985. The Net Act I mentioned was passed in 1997. Plus Dowling is strange, it seems to suggest that copyright infringement isn't theft because the alleged thief didn't steal the actual copyright and didn't deprive the owner of the use of the copyright. The decision didn't seem to have anything to do with the physical materials that were copies, most of which weren't copyrighted to begin with. The "taking" is not the copying, that's a truly sad defense. The taking is depriving the original owner of the resources due them for the time and resources expended during the creation itself. If they created it then they have the right to dictate terms in how you consume it. If you don't agree to the terms then the proper response is to not consume it, not to copy it outright and make some silly claim that they lost nothing because you made a digital copy so that they still have the original.
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      Heck, in the US there's a law referred to as the Net Act, which stands for No Electronic Theft Act This means nothing, and is certainly not a defense to your (and the copyright lobby's) misuse of the word "theft". There is absolutely no requirement that a bill amending the USC be titled anything that has to do with what it actually regulates or contains. The Patriot act has little to do with patriotism... The taking is depriving the original owner of the resources due them for the time and resources expended during the creation itself. A good counterpoint to this: * Inviting a friend or any random person to watch a movie with me: Perfectly legal. * Inviting a friend etc. to watch my entire collection of movies with me: also perfectly legal. * Ripping my own DVDs so I don't have to deal with physical media: Arguably legal and fair use. * Giving that ripped copy to said friend: Copyright violation, and many would argue morally wrong. * Downloading a copy of a movie I already purchased from a torrent site for whatever reason: Also a copyright violation, but few would argue that this is morally wrong somehow. Replace "movie" for "song" or "game" and the same argument holds. Where your logic breaks down is that the net effect to the copyright holder in every one of those scenarios is the same. Someone else enjoyed some product without extra compensation being required.