Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew H.
Depends on the jurisdiction. And on what precisely you mean by "theft." But a lot of courts seem to generally disagree:
"And deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft. " (Grokster, US Sct. 2005)
|
An apple is no different to an orange in that both are fruit. Doesn't make them the same. That copyright infringement is "no less an unlawful taking of property" than theft, does not mean
it is the same as theft.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Andrew H
"The fair use doctrine is not a license for corporate theft, empowering a court to ignore a copyright whenever it determines the underlying work contains material of possible public importance." (Harper & Row v. Nation, US Sct 1985).
|
Fair use doctrine is not a license for murder either. That doesn't mean murder and theft are the same under the law either.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Andrew H
"A CATV that builds an antenna to pick up telecasts in Area B and then transmits it by cable to Area A is reproducing the copyrighted work, not pursuant to a license from the owner of the copyright, but by theft." (Teleprompter v. CBS, US Sct. 1974).
|
No, it is reproducinig the copyrighted work by copyright infringement. Use of the inaccurate term of theft by a judge(assuming that is a quote of the judge) does not change that fact.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ANdrew H
"There is little doubt that the largest opportunity for copyright theft is through peer-to-peer (“P2P”) software." (In re Verizon Internet, US Dist. Ct. D.C., 2003).
|
There is no such offence or crime known as "copyright theft" as far as I am aware. If you could link to any such crime in any jurisdiction that may provide some back up to this quote. Otherwise it is simply another example of inaccurate terminology.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Andrew H
"The matter before the court concerns the boundary between sharing and theft, personal use and the unauthorized world-wide distribution of copyrighted music and sound recordings." (A&M v. Napster, N.D. Calif., 2000).
|
Again, incorrect use of terminology. The matter before the court in that case was the boundary between sharing and copyright infringement. Otherwise Napster would have been taken to court over
theft and not copyright infringement.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Andrew H
There is a lot of legislation that made similar points, although I'll grant that the use of the word "theft" in the "Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act of 2004" may have been motivated in part because it helps spell "PIRATE".
|
I would argue that is the only reason the word is included.
Regardless of all of the above the fact remains, under the law there are two distinct offenses known as theft and copyright infringment. They are not the same and are not treated the same.