[LINK] Theft, copyright, larceny... (was: In other news....)

Rick Welykochy rick at praxis.com.au
Tue Jun 26 09:10:04 AEST 2007


Brendan Scott wrote:

> The trouble with all of this is that it isn't theft.  That is, it is not "dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it"

Thanks for the exact legal definition of theft. It I was the point
I was trying to make, sans any reference.

> So while the statement: "whether committed with a gun or a keyboard, theft is theft." is  true, it would not appear to be of any application where someone is involved in copyright infringement.  


Compare these two cases of theft by keyboard:

CASE I: Sally downloads a copy of Sleeping Beauty on to her computer.

CASE II: Billy effects a fraudluent transfer of money from Jill's
          bank account ot his own.


In CASE I, no-one was deprived of their property. And it would be ludicrous
in a court to affirm that Sally *would have paid* X amount of dollars
for the video if she had not downloaded it. On the contrary, it would be
far easier to prove or at least statistically indicate that Sally *would
not have paid* any dollars for it. But no theft has occurred.

In CASE II, Billy has indeed deprived Jill of her property. Theft.

I agree with a lot of what Janet H has been saying in this thread. Thanks
for some fresh ideas and a look at "IP" (a term I loathe) from outside
the little box in which it currently lives.

Let's not lose sight of the original reason that Patent and Copyright laws
were enacted: to protect the originator of the work for a period of time
so they could financially benefit from their work and be encouraged to
produce more of same. And to be financially able to do same.

Walt Dizzy-knee International Incorporated acquiring the rights to
the Wigglies Grand Dance Tune and then enforcing their "ownership" of
the tune through Copyright Law certainly is *not in the original spirit
of the law*. The law was meant to protect Joe Bloggs who originally
wrote the tune in the first place. The interpretation of that law has been
changed and preened to allow transfers of these rights and to support
the interests of huge media empires. Hardly the original intent of the law.



cheers
rickw



-- 
_________________________________
Rick Welykochy || Praxis Services

Any belief that can't stand up to objective scrutiny is hardly worth having.
      -- LJ McIntyre



More information about the Link mailing list