[LINK] "Identity Theft" [was: Copyright Infringement as Stealing: Pfft!]

[Brendan Scott]

Stephen Wilson wrote:
> On the face of it, the significant level of adverse reaction amongst 
> poets to -- shall we say as blandly as possible -- the misuse of their 
> names and associated works, indicates a strong sense of proprietorship.

People have a strong sense of proprietorship for their business.  Should they be able to sue competitors who "steal" their customers?
 
> To those who deny or decry the existence of intellectual property: How 
> do you interpret these responses?  And what if any remedy would you 
> suggest when the relationship between an artist and their works is 
> misrepresented or bastardised?

The Copyright Act does not have a right to prevent misrepresentation or bastardisation. 
There have recently been introduced quasi-copyright rights (called Moral Rights) which cover some of this. 

The point is however, that if someone does something bad, that doesn't mean it should be a breach of the Copyright Act (nor, incidentally, that it should be called theft).  

I personally believe it is poor form for copyright licences to control things which other laws deal with.  For example, try downloading a session of parliament and you'll be presented with some egregious (from a participatory democracy point of view) licence terms.  These terms are meant to cover things (contempt of parliament) which are already against the law (contempt of parliament).  By setting up a copyright licence, some bureaucrat creates a parallel right with none of the limitations and qualification found in the law of contempt.

B