[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Yes, that's precisely correct. The argument here seems to be that the pro-"infringement" crowd think that because it's not called "theft," it doesn't amount to theft.

The argument is that "theft" is a specific crime, and other crimes and torts, even if they are financially damaging, are not "theft." The corollary is that people who can't tell the difference between "theft" and "violation of a legal right to control distribution" might not be able to tell the difference between "unethical behavior" and "behavior that makes me personally uncomfortable."

Ergo, the argument is:

• It's not okay to "steal" an object, that someone bought with the proceeds from their job, or their work. That would be BAD.
• But it's okay to "infringe" a copy of a book, thereby depriving the author of the proceeds from his job, so he can't buy the object in the FIRST place. THAT is okay.

• No, the argument is that that is NOT THEFT.
  
  If I write a scathing review of Stephen King's new book, a dozen of my friends may decide not to buy it. Is that theft? I have taken his ideas, and used them in a way that prevents him from making money.
  
  If I visit a friend who bought the book, and read his copy, I have gotten access to the content without paying for it. King & his publisher make no money from me. Is that theft?
  
  If I view the Google preview of the book, which is missing about 1 page in 10, and never buy it, is that theft? What if I then write a scathing review based on those pages, with highlighted screencaps showing the parts I think are most ridiculous, and convince people not to buy it? Is *that* theft?
  
  If I type the whole book into my computer from a library copy, is that theft?
  If I feed that typewritten version into my friend's read-aloud program, because there is no accessible legit version, is that theft?
  If the friend donates my text version to the local school for the blind, has theft occurred yet?
  If the original disc he used to bring it to them is lost, and someone else loads it onto their computer, is that theft? Who did the stealing--me, my friend, or this stranger?
  
  And--this is the *important* part--who is *out* 1 text copy of an ebook? Whose property is *missing?*
  
  Because that's what theft is. One person's property, in the hands of someone who doesn't have permission to have it. And that text version is *not* Mr. King's property. It wasn't created on his computer. He's never heard of it. He doesn't know it exists. He certainly can't sell it or will it to his heirs.
  
  He has the *right to say how it's used,* with some limitations. A right-to-use, or a right-to-manage-use, is not the same as ownership.
  
  I get to say when my kids wake up. What they eat. Where they attend school. What religious practices they may do. Who they spend time with. What toys they can use. I get to control pretty much every aspect of their lives.
  
  But I don't own them. If someone else steps in and takes those decisions away from me--if a neighbor feeds them foods I forbid, takes them to movies I don't allow, attempts to convert them to a religion other than mine--I have legal recourse, but nobody will take me seriously if I try to claim the neighbor "stole" my children. (The claim would work for casual conversation, but it wouldn't be acceptable to a court.)
  
  If you visit my house and leave with three of my books without my permission, you have stolen them. If you visit, read them & memorize them, and go home & type up what you remember, you may have violated my privacy somehow, but you have not "stolen" from me.
  
  

  What's the difference between this and mugging some guy on his way back from the check-cashing store? What, that's different because then you'd have to get your hands dirty, AND you could actually SEE the money you're taking, and the guy you're robbing? Is that the logic here?

The difference is that mugging takes away *money in his pocket.* Torrenting takes away money he hoped to get in the future... maybe.

There's been no proof that downloading, even massive downloading, cuts into sales. It *does* mean "there's a whole bunch of people reading without paying." (Not as many as are torrenting, but some at least are reading.) But there have *always* been people reading books without paying.

If it's "theft" to download & read, it's equally "theft" to get a used copy from a friend. The result to the author is the same: no payment for that read.

In one case, there are multiple copies going around. But "theft" does not mean "made so many extras that the original source can't sell them anymore." If you're selling bottled water for $1 each, and I give away water from the same spring for free and you can't sell yours anymore, I haven't stolen anything from you.

Note that bottled water is a multi-BILLION dollar industry. People will indeed pay for what's available for free.

I'm gobsmacked by the incredibly creative interpretation of the Constitutional clause protecting copyright as meaning that IP "belongs to everyone." That's Marxist horsepucky.

No, that's Jeffersonian economics. Ideas belong to everyone; they're licensed for exclusive use for a short time in order to encourage sharing them.

Whatever I write belongs to me. I can license it or not as I see fit, just as can anyone else. I'm under no obligation to "give" what I write to anyone.

If you publish, it belongs to the public. The public has limited usage rights for a while, after which, they get all rights to it. You are under no obligation to publish, or to write at all. If you want total control of your writing, do it in a language nobody else understands, on a medium nobody else has access to.

And while I agree, absolutely, that copyrights should not exist in perpetuity, they do NOT.

Got any proof of that? I mean, there's a law that says "they expire in X years," but there was a previous law that said that, and it was overruled.

Moreover, only ARTISTS--authors and others--are somehow obligated to give their efforts to "the public," in however many years.

They're only obligated to allow the public to use their ideas. They may hand down their manuscripts, their paintings, their photographs; the public doesn't take ownership of their pages, hard drives & memory sticks. Just like house builders: the house is theirs to keep; the method of fixing shutters to the windows can be freely copied.

You get to keep your *property*. It's your uniqueness that goes away after a while.

that you want this thing--means that it does have value, and therefore, it has a value to which its creator is entitled.

I want a copy of the recent ruling for the Perry v Schwarzenneger case about Prop 8 in California. It was written by Judge Walker. It has value to me. How much is he entitled to for that value?