[LINK] Theft, copyright, larceny...

[Darryl (Dassa) Lynch]

link-bounces at anumail0.anu.edu.au wrote:
>> On 27/6/07 2:24 PM, "Bernard Robertson-Dunn"
>> <brd at iimetro.com.au> 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 because 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. In this model, Bill has stolen something from Joe in
>>> exactly the same way as if he had stolen a CD. 
>>> 
>> 
>> Alternative scenario:
>> 
>> Joe is an artist and sells CDs etc of his performances. Bill
>> is also an artist and also sells CDs etc of his own
>> performances. Jane is hungering for an hour of entertainment
>> to gift to her nana, and buys one of Bill's CDs from Bill.
>> Since Jane only has $10 to spend, Joe has now lost the
>> opportunity to make that same sale.
>> 
>>> To summarise, it's not the information that's gone, it's the
>>> opportunity. 
>> 
>> Yep.


Ah, but if Jane then went and took a copy of Joes CD without paying him
anything then it isn't a lot opportunity.  It seems people are getting hung
up on the fact with IP there are not a finite number of items where if one
takes it, it is depriving the other of the item.  With IP one can take it
and the creator still has their original.  It doesn't alter the fact
something was taken without permission.

If you take something from me without permission and I consider I own it
then I'll call it theft.  You may say you only borrowed it, or it was only
copyright infringement but I'd still call it theft.

The argument seems to be going on too many fronts and there is too much
confusion.  If you boil it down to the simplest elements perhaps it will be
easier to reach agreement :).

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch