Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
Okay, then, here's the question:
Is an electronic version of a property considered to be a coherent thing that can be stolen? Would the supposition that an electronic document is created "from nothing" be considered a "subterfuge" in such a case? (Okay, 2 questions...)
|
Good question -- I don't think it can be answered well outside of a court room. I'll give it a try, though.
** Question 1: At present, I don't think the legal definition of theft (or at least the one I'm most familiar with -- there are always national variations) covers anything that is not in physical form, or 'fixed in a tangible medium'. The 'deprivation' that theft is intended to produce must be significant to the injured party -- and for purely electronic data, it is not clear that an extra copy, done at home, causes that. It may deprive the injured party of income -- thus, the stolen 'thing' is really money -- but the definition of theft implies that the injured party enjoyed the use of the stolen property, and that is clearly not so in this case.
The best thing to make me change that opinion would be to see legal cases, involving unauthorized copying of digital information (music, films, books, etc.), that refer to the law(s) on theft, instead of those on copyright protection. Until that happens, I regard the word 'theft' used in such cases as a rhetorical device, that is, 'reasoning by appeal to emotion'.
Of course, changing (or clarifying) the legal definition would also do the job. But such clarifications must come from someone who is not a party with a limited area of interest (such as RIAA and similar groups, who obviously have a active interest in protecting their own livelihood, and so can't be assumed to protect the interest of the general public with the same vigour).
It's pretty clear, though, that laws lag behind real life, and that the legal map does no longer conform to reality. I think theft and copyright infringement ... and perhaps one or two other legal areas are in serious need of being reshaped.
I don't think it is useful to discuss any other (i.e. non-legal) definition unless that definition is clearly expressed up front. (Talleyrand, I think, noted that abstract terms are like valises with false bottoms: I can remove or insert things without anyone noticing I have done so. And that tends to happen a lot -- even unconsciously.)
** Question 2: Not sure if I understand the question: I probably expressed that part less clearly that I hoped to do.
The subterfuge I was referring to is confusing a legal definition of theft with some other definition that isn't well expressed, but carries tons of emotional overtones ('argument by emotion'). The context was that of the question why people accept personal copying of digital information ... and I was trying to express a belief that it could partly be a reaction against that form of public education. That is, by saying: 'it's bad, Bad, BAD! You ought to be ashamed! Big Brother says so, naughty person. ', instead of 'you're breaking the laws of copyright protection: this is why we have them, and this is what they protect', the message is changed from facts to emotion. [added: I see that I do a bit of that emotion bit myself here, by using 'Big Brother'. Sorry about that, but I'll let it stand as a bad example.]
Now, advertisements largely work by appeal to emotion ... and more and more people recognize the techniques used and have raised mental filters for them. Legal advice that uses the form of such advertisements (you have all seen the 'You wouldn't steal a car ...' tracks on many DVDs) will easily be rejected as bogus or at the very least non-impartial advice just for this reason. That may easily go the opposite way: if legal advice looks so obviously bogus, I (assuming I do plan to make some unauthorized copies) can probably expect it not to stand up in court if I am caught.
I believe there's a lack of clear-thinking and plain-speaking in this field, and that that is often taken as contributing reason to break existing laws and regulations.
I hope that didn't raise more questions than I hopefully answered.