[LINK] Theft, copyright, larceny...

[Craig Sanders]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 12:24:14PM +0800, Bernard Robertson-Dunn wrote:
> A scenario:
>
> Joe sells CDs and DVDs for which he gets $10 each (or whatever)
>
> Bill copies one of Joe's CDs and gives it to Fred.
>
> Bill has not stolen any information from Joe beacuse Joe still has the
> information and is not deprived of it.
>
> However, Joe can be described as having lost the opportunity to sell
> information, not lost the information itself.

wrong. the opportunity still exists and, in fact, is enhanced by Bill's
trial usage of Joe's CD.

> In this model, Bill has stolen something from Joe in exactly the same
> way as if he had stolen a CD.

so, let me get this straight - if i take a photo of your house or car
(i.e. copy it), then that means i'm stealing your house or car? and if i
take a photo of you, then i suppose i am guilty of kidnapping?

tell me - do you understand the difference between the real world, and
virtual worlds? between a physical object and a digital representation
of it? between a thing and a photograph of that thing?

> To summarise, it's not the information that's gone, it's the opportunity.

numerous studies on the issue have shown that rather than
reducing/destroying opportunity, it actually increases the opportunity of a
sale because most downloaders are trying before they buy.

> I don't understand why this isn't called stealing.

because it's not stealing.  it's copyright infringement.

do you also fail to undertand why "milk" isn't called "petrol"?


> Working out how much has been stolen is another matter, but something
> has gone that can't be given back.

rubbish. a) nothing has been stolen, and b) at *any time*, Bill may
decide that he really likes Joe's CD and buy his own copy of it.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>