[LINK] Theft, copyright, larceny...

[Kim Holburn]

In the case of the drinkordie guy, he allowed people to copy for  
free.  Even if you count all the copies that were made (and they were  
not actually made by him), he in no way stopped those people paying  
for the software.  They may have paid for it or they may not have.   
The point is that that imaginary loss is not due to him but to the  
actual copiers or downloaders of the product.


On 2007/Jun/28, at 1:41 AM, Stewart Fist wrote:
> Brendan writes
>> Can you point us to the accounts which list the value of a  
>> person's copyright
>> infringed as a loss?  I assume you can't because the accountants  
>> and tax pple
>> don't let these amounts be listed as a loss.  Perhaps that's  
>> because they
>> don't think it is a loss.
>
> So now we are moving from only allowing the use of words like  
> 'theft' and
> 'piracy' in the way they are defined by the legislation .. to only  
> being
> allowed to use word like 'loss' in the way they are defined by the  
> taxation
> department.
>
>> The argument is not about the quantum. If it is theft it is theft  
>> even if the
> thing stolen is only worth $0.01 or even less.

It is theft when the person owning the thing is deprived of it.

> I assume you've never "borrowed' a biro from your workplace, or  
> placed a
> private phone-call while at work without sending 20 cents to your  
> boss for
> compensation.
>
>> This is rather beside the point.  He may be a very naughty person  
>> and deserve
>> to be punished, but that doesn't, by itself at least, make him a  
>> thief.
>
> What makes him a thief is his appropriation of something of value  
> belonging
> to someone else, to which he had no rights.

A thief is someone who deprives the owner of something of that thing  
by stealth.

> The type of thievery might have had other names as well.
>
> If he had only stolen a biro from his place of work, it would have  
> been
> called "conversion" -- but it would still have been theft
>
> If he had used the company yacht for his own purposes, hiring it  
> out to
> others for Xmas parties, it would also have been 'conversion' --  
> and it
> would still have been theft.
>
> If as a bank-teller, he had changed the numbers on his own bank  
> account,
> that would have been called "fraud" and still have been theft.
>
> If as a bankrobber he had held up a bank, that would have been  
> called an
> "armed hold up" and still have been theft

No that would be robbery, armed robbery.

> And it he had stolen someone's copyright, it would have been called a
> "copyright infringement" and still have been theft.

No it would be stealing the right to copy which is different to  
making a copy without permission.

> That's why the constant refusal to recognise that these are all  
> forms of
> theft makes this nothing more than an argument about the use of  
> legalistic
> euphemisms.

It is legalistic because it is a legal point.  It is not simple.

> It's an attempt to make out that "my favourite type of theft" is  
> not as
> serious as other peoples type of theft.

Unless you are depriving someone of actual things it's not theft.

Oh yeah: IANAL.

--
Kim Holburn
IT Network & Security Consultant
Ph: +39 06 855 4294  M: +39 3494957443
mailto:kim at holburn.net  aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request

Democracy imposed from without is the severest form of tyranny.
                           -- Lloyd Biggle, Jr. Analog, Apr 1961