I have found numerous pirated ebooks for free online. Please tell me the benefits of

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by gmw

But once pwalker8 understands that defining copyright as property does not affect the argument over whether copyright infringement is theft, then maybe the sky can go back to being blue.

Understood. My belief that infringement (in the form of illegal downloading) is best described as theft certainly has nothing to do with whether or not copyright can (or should) be defined as property.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by gmw

I agree with you, but I didn't really want to re-open the argument of whether copyright infringement is technically theft or not. My primary point was that I think - maybe - pwalker8 objected to calling copyright property because of the (potential) confusion I discuss in the previous post. This would explain what otherwise - to me - seems like an attempt to say the sky is not blue.

But once pwalker8 understands that defining copyright as property does not affect the argument over whether copyright infringement is theft, then maybe the sky can go back to being blue.

No copyright infringement has nothing to do with the idea of copyright as property, though the fact that it's an entirely different set of case law with very different enforcement mechanisms and penalties than thief per se supports the idea that copyright is not property.

The copyright as property rhetorical device is purely about selling the idea that the government granted monopoly should be extended ad infinitum. So far, it doesn't include a push to change the enforcement mechanisms, though I wouldn't be shocked if it was the next step.

As far as support of the definition that I use, all one has to do is look in a dictionary pre 1970's. Even intangible property was defined as stocks and bonds, IP was added later. The push to expand the term property to intellectual property didn't really take hold in the US until the 70's, which is oddly enough when the push for the US to sign the Berne Convention and get protections for US movies and music world wide.

Perhaps the sky is blue, but you are arguing it's green because you are color blind and can't tell the difference between the two (had a teacher with blue/green color blindness).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The copyright as property rhetorical device is purely about selling the idea that the government granted monopoly should be extended ad infinitum.

What evidence do you have to support your claim that any government is planning to extend copyright indefinitely?

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

No copyright infringement has nothing to do with the idea of copyright as property, though the fact that it's an entirely different set of case law with very different enforcement mechanisms and penalties than thief per se supports the idea that copyright is not property.

The copyright as property rhetorical device is purely about selling the idea that the government granted monopoly should be extended ad infinitum. So far, it doesn't include a push to change the enforcement mechanisms, though I wouldn't be shocked if it was the next step.

As far as support of the definition that I use, all one has to do is look in a dictionary pre 1970's. Even intangible property was defined as stocks and bonds, IP was added later. The push to expand the term property to intellectual property didn't really take hold in the US until the 70's, which is oddly enough when the push for the US to sign the Berne Convention and get protections for US movies and music world wide.

Perhaps the sky is blue, but you are arguing it's green because you are color blind and can't tell the difference between the two (had a teacher with blue/green color blindness).

Sorry, but, no. See Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. 591 (1834) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/33/591/ , (130 years prior to the 1970's), in which Justice McLean stated (writing for the majority):

since the statute of 8 Anne, the literary property of an author in his works can only be asserted under the statute. . . . That an author, at common law, has a property in his manuscript, and may obtain redress against any one who deprives him of it, or by improperly obtaining a copy endeavours to realise a profit by its publication cannot be doubted; but this is a very different right from that which asserts a perpetual and exclusive property in the future publication of the work, after the author shall have published it to the world."

(bold emphasis added).

That a typical dictionary didn't discuss copyright as property is utterly meaningless. There are innumerable legal terms, statutes, etc., that you would not find discussed in the OED (unabridged) today. That is irrelevant.

Copyright has been a PROPERTY right under all applicable laws and statutes and Acts since the Statute of Anne. (And I'm not even getting into the earlier laws and acts, which also discuss it, like the Licensing Act of 1662.) With all due respect, you really are arguing that the sky is not blue and that water is not wet.

Hitch

[leebase]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Yet in the US, it doesn't quite work that way. It is legal to buy a used book. You got no extra money.

Ok. the copyright was transferred. Yet if I disassemble the book, and scan and proof it, for my own use, and the destroy the original, did I violate the copyright? I had one copy in physical format, now I have one copy in virtual format. One copy, either way. Does format shifting count as copyright violation?

Lots of possibilities. . .

When you buy a book you do not get the copyright. Why is this so hard to understand? The physical book is yours, the copyright to the story in the book is a completely different thing. You cannot photo copy all the pages and the give that copy of the book away.

In the digital world where copying is so easy you aren’t even buying the file. You are listening the right to read that file...and not the right to copy and give it away. You can’t even give an ebook away and destroy your copy of the file. You don’t get the right to transfer the license. There is no such thing as a used ebook.

But even with all that extra complications with digital goods....the copyright is separate...and is the property of the author or whoever the author sells the copyright to

[gmw]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

No copyright infringement has nothing to do with the idea of copyright as property, [...]

Okay, so we agree on that much. It's a shame really, I had hoped a misunderstanding on this level might have offered common ground on the property discussion. Wishful thinking, I guess.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The copyright as property rhetorical device is purely about selling the idea that the government granted monopoly should be extended ad infinitum. [...]

This really is tin-foil hat territory. There is absolutely nothing about treating a right as a property that in any way alters whether government will or will not extend that right. Copyright is treated as a property by business, and the law, because that is what is necessary to transact business. Business that owns valuable copyright will try hard to retain that valuable thing whether it is referred to as property or not.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

As far as support of the definition that I use, all one has to do is look in a dictionary pre 1970's. [...]

A dictionary seems an odd place to look for legal definitions, but if you insist:

One 1925 American dictionary (The New Universities Dictionary) defines property as "exclusive right of possession; the thing owned". (Quoting the relevant sense only.)

One 1946 English dictionary (Odhams Dictionary of the English Language Illustrated) defines property as "a thing or things possessed". (Quoting the relevant sense only.)

No help for you in either of these, since neither attempts to limit what can be possessed in order to be considered a property. (Note: In case you're tempted to go there, "thing" includes the definition (from the OED): "that which is or may be in any way an object of perception, knowledge, or thought" That's fairly comprehensive, it certainly includes the possibility that a right may be possessed, so no help for you there either.)


Not that it matters. As I said earlier, copyright will continue to be treated as a property by all affected parties. Bystanders can call it whatever they want.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Sorry, but, no. See Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. 591 (1834) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/33/591/ , (130 years prior to the 1970's), in which Justice McLean stated (writing for the majority):

(bold emphasis added).

That a typical dictionary didn't discuss copyright as property is utterly meaningless. There are innumerable legal terms, statutes, etc., that you would not find discussed in the OED (unabridged) today. That is irrelevant.

Copyright has been a PROPERTY right under all applicable laws and statutes and Acts since the Statute of Anne. (And I'm not even getting into the earlier laws and acts, which also discuss it, like the Licensing Act of 1662.) With all due respect, you really are arguing that the sky is not blue and that water is not wet.

Hitch

Useful post - thanks!

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Sorry, but, no. See Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. 591 (1834) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/33/591/ , (130 years prior to the 1970's), in which Justice McLean stated (writing for the majority):

(bold emphasis added).

That a typical dictionary didn't discuss copyright as property is utterly meaningless. There are innumerable legal terms, statutes, etc., that you would not find discussed in the OED (unabridged) today. That is irrelevant.

Copyright has been a PROPERTY right under all applicable laws and statutes and Acts since the Statute of Anne. (And I'm not even getting into the earlier laws and acts, which also discuss it, like the Licensing Act of 1662.) With all due respect, you really are arguing that the sky is not blue and that water is not wet.

Hitch

"since the statute of 8 Anne, the literary property of an author in his works can only be asserted under the statute. . . . That an author, at common law, has a property in his manuscript, and may obtain redress against any one who deprives him of it, or by improperly obtaining a copy endeavours to realise a profit by its publication cannot be doubted; but this is a very different right from that which asserts a perpetual and exclusive property in the future publication of the work, after the author shall have published it to the world."

Even this ruling supports the concept that copyrighted "property" is different from what is commonly thought of as property.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Useful post - thanks!

You are most welcome. It's one of those handy things that I have bookmarked, for discussions that are, well, somewhat like this one--although this one is unique, in the recent turn it's taken.

Hitch

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Even this ruling supports the concept that copyrighted "property" is different from what is commonly thought of as property.

Different, yes. But there's nothing in there to suggest that it's not in fact "property." I haven't seen anyone arguing that copyright is different property. They're arguing that it's not property. Which is clearly untrue by pure legal standards and by definition.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by gmw

This really is tin-foil hat territory. There is absolutely nothing about treating a right as a property that in any way alters whether government will or will not extend that right. Copyright is treated as a property by business, and the law, because that is what is necessary to transact business. Business that owns valuable copyright will try hard to retain that valuable thing whether it is referred to as property or not.

By the same concept, a mortgage is a property, as well. So you believe that the government should be able to extend the terms of a mortgage, to suit the needs of the mortgage owner?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

By the same concept, a mortgage is a property, as well. So you believe that the government should be able to extend the terms of a mortgage, to suit the needs of the mortgage owner?

Non sequitur

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Different, yes. But there's nothing in there to suggest that it's not in fact "property." I haven't seen anyone arguing that copyright is different property. They're arguing that it's not property. Which is clearly untrue by pure legal standards and by definition.

But DD, people keep conflating the rules of this specific property (with its own rules), with the other rules of real property, which is defined as perpetual, and eternal. Read the legal language of a property title, for example. Term like forever.

Copyright "property" is a contractual property, like a contract to deliver a good, or a loan. As such, the agreed to terms (at the time of contract) should be followed.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Non sequitur

Really? Explain to me the difference. Both are defined term contracts. One between a lender and a person, and the other between a creator (sic) and the sum of all people in a jurisdiction.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Copyright "property" is a contractual property, like a contract to deliver a good, or a loan. As such, the agreed to terms (at the time of contract) should be followed.

Unless both sides agree to vary the terms of the contract. Which is what happened.

Your representatives in your Congress agreed to vary the terms on your behalf.