Secret Copyright Law Reported

[tompe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

If you do not want that, i.e. if you want to retain your rights to it, then you can but you can't do both.

It seems very easy to retain the rights and wish for other people to commit copyright infringement and copy the book. I do not get why this is problematic. I actually do wish people to commit copyright infringements to fasten the collapse of the current corrupt system and that wish is of course valid for things I have produced.

If you take something of mine without my permission you are a thief.

You know, repeating falsehoods do not make them true.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tompe

It seems very easy to retain the rights and wish for other people to commit copyright infringement and copy the book. I do not get why this is problematic. I actually do wish people to commit copyright infringements to fasten the collapse of the current corrupt system and that wish is of course valid for things I have produced.


You know, repeating falsehoods do not make them true.

I must still not be following your reasoning. First do you or do you not want copyright protection on your IP?

I think that is the base understanding/misunderstanding. So let's start with that.

As far as you second comment. My belief is true. My statement is true.

If you take something of mine without my permission you are a thief.

Please explain how it cannot be true? It is a very simple English statement. I don't see that it can be untrue unless you redefine or restrict the meaning of (some of) the words.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by kennyc

If you take something of mine without my permission you are a thief.

Please explain how it cannot be true? It is a very simple English statement. I don't see that it can be untrue unless you redefine or restrict the meaning of (some of) the words.

One example (less contentious than others perhaps) where it falls down is in the world of chess.
A player can work for years on an idea, but as soon as it enters the public arena it's freely available for anyone to use.
An idea has been 'taken' from someone without their permission, but it isn't theft.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Please explain how it cannot be true? It is a very simple English statement. I don't see that it can be untrue unless you redefine or restrict the meaning of (some of) the words.

It's untrue based on a legal definition of the words. According to law, copyright infringement and theft are two completely different things. You may have your own personal definition of the word "theft" and "thief", but I don't know why you would expect others to share your personal definition.

Comments similar to yours are generally made by people who either don't understand the law, or are intentionally misusing the terms for purposes of FUD. Based on your previous comments about downloaders requiring permission from the copyright holder (which is nonsense), I'll assume the former. It appears that some of your opinions are based on fundamental misunderstandings of IP.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by kennyc

If you take something of mine without my permission you are a thief.

Please explain how it cannot be true? It is a very simple English statement. I don't see that it can be untrue unless you redefine or restrict the meaning of (some of) the words.

It is you that is redefining words. Something it taken from you only when you no longer have it. Looking at pictures, hearing sounds, or reading words without your permission does not mean that you no longer have the digital images, digital sound files, or digital text. You are calling seeing, hearing, and reading theft.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

One example (less contentious than others perhaps) where it falls down is in the world of chess.
A player can work for years on an idea, but as soon as it enters the public arena it's freely available for anyone to use.
An idea has been 'taken' from someone without their permission, but it isn't theft.

You can say the same thing about IP because that is what you are talking about and currently the copyright law is intended to address that with regard to certain types of IP, Patent protection protects other types, etc. etc. That is the current laws that are in place and as I've said repeatedly I'm not discussing the current laws when I say this, I'm talking about what is ethically and morally right regardless of current law.

What you are talking about with the chess I think, would be calls a process or sequence or something -- very much along the lines of computer code. (unless I'm missing your point). That is a process that I'm assuming in your example someone could "copy" similar perhaps to high-jumping when the first person jumped with their back to the bar then everyone copied them. This is still a kind of theft in a way but it is also different in that we are talking about duplicating a sequence of muscle movements or sequence of chess moves rather than taking a physical object like a book or computer file. (I can see though that this same concept is at the core of the current allowance of patents to computer code.

I suppose a more equivalent example with regard to an ebook (or pbook for that matter) would be that if a person with flawless memory read your book by checking it out from the library and was then able to recreate it by typing it in, they would have a copy of your book. Still if I did not give permission for them to have that copy then it is an illegal copy and they have stolen it from me (due to their superpowers ). The book the sequence of characters is my Intellectual Property and the fact that they have it without my permission means they are a thief. IMO (Ah, but it occurs to me why would a person with a flawless memory even need to type it out unless nefarious deeds were under way. )

Maybe EBooks should be protected under patent law as opposed to copyright law.

Still I am firm in my belief that If you take my property without my permission you are a thief.

[btw here is one definition of thief: a criminal who takes property belonging to someone else with the intention of keeping it or selling it ]

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

It's untrue based on a legal definition of the words. According to law, copyright infringement and theft are two completely different things. You may have your own personal definition of the word "theft" and "thief", but I don't know why you would expect others to share your personal definition.

Comments similar to yours are generally made by people who either don't understand the law, or are intentionally misusing the terms for purposes of FUD. Based on your previous comments about downloaders requiring permission from the copyright holder (which is nonsense), I'll assume the former. It appears that some of your opinions are based on fundamental misunderstandings of IP.

No. I refuse to be limited by the current laws as I've already said. I'm talking about normal everyday definitions (not my modified definitions - common ordinary dictionary definitions) and doing what is right.

Don't try to sneak in a personal attack. I understand the law, copyrights, patents and IP rights.

There is no misunderstanding on my part at all, but there is in the understanding of many who are claiming that copying a file without permission is not theft.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

It is you that is redefining words. Something it taken from you only when you no longer have it. Looking at pictures, hearing sounds, or reading words without your permission does not mean that you no longer have the digital images, digital sound files, or digital text. You are calling seeing, hearing, and reading theft.

This is only applicable when you are discussion physical objects that exist uniquely. The fact that there are more that one equivalent object has nothing to do with it. See my Star Trek Duplicator example above.

No I am not claiming sensory input is theft. You are just trying to confuse the point but making a copy of my property which I have not given permission to do IS theft.

If you take my property without my permission you are a thief.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

It's untrue based on a legal definition of the words.

The law should reflect the meanings of word as they are used. Often, it doesn't-which means the *law* is redefining words, not the people who use them.

I'd make two notes about this however. First, it's a comment strictly on your implication that the definition according to the law should override the 'common' definition. (I'd say dictionary definition, but then we'd get into an argument about which dictionary. Saying 'common' definition lets us politely disagree about what that is.)

And my second note is that even though the law may 'mis-define' a term a person would be a fool not to pay attention to how the law does define it. Whether the term is defined 'correctly' or not, you will be convicted (or not) based on how the law defines it.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by kennyc

This is only applicable when you are discussion physical objects that exist uniquely.

Yes! Finally, you agree! "Theft" only applies when you are discussing physical objects that exist uniquely!

The fact that there are more that one equivalent object has nothing to do with it. See my Star Trek Duplicator example above.

Yes, you described my idea of the ideal utopia. In which all physical needs are cheaply and easily available by cornucopia machines, (which can be used to make more cornucopia machines) all basic needs are freely available to everyone, and there is no longer any need for such things as "jobs" and "businesses", with all creativity done by people freely in their free time. YES, I want a machine that can copy Zu Zu Pets, and flatscreen televisions, and medications, and buckets of KFC, and possibly Rei Toei.

YES, I want a world where, like in Star Trek TNG, people are freed from "needing" "jobs" and are able to spend their time pursuing knowledge for it's own sake without concern of their basic needs.

YES, more than anything I want a world where the sum total of all human knowledge is instantly available to everyone, everywhere, and nobody-- even the "poorest" person-- ever has to stop and wonder if they can "afford" any part of that knowledge. I want the world of Diamond Age and Singularity Sky and Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom.

Bring on the Star Trek Duplicators! I'll take two!

Wait, I'll take one. I can use it to make another Star Trek Duplicator.

[kennyc]

I want that world too!

I've been reading about it for years...

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Yes! Finally, you agree! "Theft" only applies when you are discussing physical objects that exist uniquely!

Then, what is Identity Theft?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

Then, what is Identity Theft?

It's Legal!

[tompe]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

Then, what is Identity Theft?

A misnomer! Like "East River", "tear gas" and "white chocolate".

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

Then, what is Identity Theft?

A way to spend money using your identification, costing you in problems with your credit rating, possibly your checking account, and possibly legal troubles. In other words, something that actually effects you.