Quote:
Originally Posted by tompe
No it does not. It lead people wrong in their thinking and that is what people using the word want. It is basically dishonest to use the word theft for copyright infringement.
|
Tompe:
Not to inflame this further, but how do you consider it "dishonest?" How, other than a wording difference, do you really see the difference? I'm the first to agree that the various and sundry laws surrounding infringement CALL it infringement; but "conversion" is another phrase (legal) used to cover the ground of "any unauthorized act which deprives an owner of his property permanently, or for an indefinite time. Unauthorized and wrongful exercise of
dominion and control over another's personal property, to exclusion of or inconsistent with, the rights of the owner."
I'd say that diverting possible sales income, from an author (owner) who had the rights to it, for his "property," intellectual or otherwise, certainly falls into that arena. And, yes, conversion also applies to "real" goods, not intangible ones, but when you research conversion, in any of various and sundry legal texts, you are further referred to (just for the edification of those who've never poured over such tomes): "See also: Embezzlement; Equitable Conversion; Fraudulent Conversion; involuntary conversion." So...when this happens to personalty, it's certainly criminal, and although "called" conversion, it's still a form of theft. (Unless now, we're all going to get into the legal minutiae, arguing that somehow, embezzlement is NOT "theft," because it's called by some other term???)
And I'd point out--I don't have the citations immediately to hand--but many court cases and some law DO refer to IP as "personal property." When you inherit (or pass) copyrighted material from someone who owns the rights to a devisee or heir, that's considered as
personal property being passed. Not some other type of property--it's personalty.
So, again, why? Why is the personal property of IP, somehow different than the personal property that can be physically carried away, from an actual standpoint? And yes: I know the answer: because they cannot be held in the hand.
Nonetheless: if personal property can be converted, or embezzled, and we CLEARLY refer to those things as "theft," (without everyone getting hissy about it, and resisting the use of that word) then refusing to call copyright infringement, which is simply the correct legal term for the "misappropriation" of the Intellectual Property Rights inherent in Intangible, Intellectual Property, "theft," is hair-slitting to the nth.
If Conversion = embezzlement and we all seem to process and parse THAT as "theft," without qualm, then seriously, how can we all argue, with a straight face, that copyright infringement <> "theft?" What, sauce that's good for the goose isn't good for the gander?
It seems to me that everyone who opposes this is simply resistant to the idea because it makes the reality of what's happening quite clear. Sure, the original "copy" isn't being stolen. What's being stolen is potential. As I said in another thread here, a long time ago,
People argue that CI isn't theft, because you didn't break into the author's house and steal his TV set; thus, it's not theft. Nor did you mug him on the way home from the check-cashing place, and steal the money IN his pocket. No, what's happened is that you've prevented him from ever GETTING the royalty check in the first place, by misappropriating/infringing/pirating the funds he MAY have received, before he could either put them in his pocket, or buy that TV with them. Somehow, that's "less emotionally charged?" Like the
crimeinfringement never happened? Don't you think that really, that's a lot more dishonest way of looking at it? What, it's "mo' better" to steal the money before he has the chance to know about it?
Seriously not endeavoring to be more inflammatory; I'm simply trying to understand how people THINK. To me, rationalizing an act as "not theft," simply because the laws of the land gave it ANOTHER NAME, another layour of protection, and another route of prosecution, really
is awfully hair-splitting and deliberately diversionary. This is what's trotted out every time: It's not theft!
Just because our lawmakers, in their infinite wisdom, decided to call X by the
term Y, doesn't mean that the reality of Y is something different to the victim. "Conversion," when it's embezzlement, doesn't make the act one iota less an act of thievery. Nobody ever argues about that; that seems to be widely accepted. And legally speaking, in terms of what word is used where, etc., the case isn't any different than IP Infringement. But the victim of IP Infringement is actually damaged MORE, in many ways, than the victim of Embezzlement, because most times,
s/he can't prove what was taken. When that's the case, and s/he can't prove damages, for the very reasons so abundant in this discussion (can't tell how many downloads, nobody will agree how many might have been real sales, etc.) s/he can't sue--or s/he can't sue and win, unlike the victim of the embezzler.
But...I guess she can take some comfort in the idea that she wasn't actually THIEVED from.
Hitch