Quote:
Originally Posted by sjfan
My non-lawyer understanding:
This is another place where the terrible intellectual "property" metaphor that's become so common is misleading.
An ebook that was actually stolen (say, on a thumb drive, thereby removing it from the original owner's possession entirely) would be treated similarly.
But an illegally copied one would be treated rather differently in many jurisdictions.
*The UK law, for instance, reads: "A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and "thief" and "steal" shall be construed accordingly". In New York the law says that theft occurs when someone "wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds property from its rightful owner, with the intent to deprive the owner of such property"
|
The UK story goes back to the reason for the Official_Secrets_Act_1889
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Secrets_Act_1889
My history teacher told me that a disgruntled government copyist (meaning pen and ink) made his own copy of a secret treaty and sold it.
The prosecution for theft (probably larceny in those days) failed. The paper was probably his own.