Secret Copyright Law Reported

[tompe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I just want people to DO the Right Thing. Do as you would expect to be done to.

Oh, good. I would like people to copy and distribute for free everything I write. So according to your reasoning it is morally OK for me to download illegally books. Just show how silly the non modified golden rule is.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

...My point was that these terms are commonly used and are even used in a legal brief that is to be understood by the court. I was defending your use of the term as being an understood term when not splitting hairs to justify stealing.

Ordinarily the terms 'stealing' and 'thief' carry a lot of negative connotations; but when they are used in a context like:

Originally Posted by kennyc

My opinion: If you take something of mine without my permission, you are a thief.

Then they lose a lot of that weight, because everyone comes within that definition of being a thief.
Imho being denounced as a 'thief' in that sense doesn't mean very much.

[osnova]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I wish people would quit trying to muddy the waters with redefinitions of the concept.

If you take something that is mine without my permission, you have stolen from me and you are a thief.

You are trying to appeal to morality. Yet, you are begging the question. The question is whether something as intangible as an "object" of copyright is "yours" in moral terms. There is nothing self-evident about this.

My view is that the copyright is an exception to the general rule that literary, artistic, etc. embodiment of ideas is not "property" and it cannot and should not be claimed by any individual or group of individuals.

I admit validity of an argument that a limited in scope and time exception to this general rule (i.e. copyright) may be necessary to encourage the creation of such ideal content, and as such beneficial to the society. Yet, the restrictions (prohibitions against unauthorized copying, etc.) accompanying this exception are malum prohibitum (i.e., wrong solely because prohibited by law; not wrong in itself). Speeding is a good example of malum prohibitum crimes.

As a result, I do not view copyright violations as malum in se (wrong in itself; morally wrong). Examples of malum in se crimes would be murder, theft (it would follow from my position above that I do not consider violations of copyright to be "theft").

Even if the most of us would agree that the copyright is necessary, we, as the society, should have a discussion how broad in scope and long in time we would allow/tolerate this exception to be. Note that this discussion can and should lead to different results in different societies/countries.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

You pass by someone on the street corner playing a guitar. You stop and listen for a few minutes, then walk away without putting money in his jar. Are you a thief?

No, because the person was freely providing the music -- he is explicitly "giving the entertainment away. Somewhat equivalent to free software that you can download for nothing and if you choose to support with donations or pay what you want. Still the two are not exactly equivalent because in one case it it the "entertainment" that is being provided, not the rights to the song or to use it yourself.

We're really getting pretty far off the topic I think though so let's stick with that if possible.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tompe

Oh, good. I would like people to copy and distribute for free everything I write. So according to your reasoning it is morally OK for me to download illegally books. Just show how silly the non modified golden rule is.

What??? Where in the world did that come from? If you CHOOSE to give permission for anyone to copy your IP and make it freely available then wonderful. I love it! But it has nothing to do with anything that has been said in this thread with regard to stealing other people's I.P.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

My point was not aimed at you in particular. Many people in the forum have stated that copyright violation is not stealing nor is it pirating. My point was that these terms are commonly used and are even used in a legal brief that is to be understood by the court. I was defending your use of the term as being an understood term when not splitting hairs to justify stealing.

Dale

Ah, Okay. I though it was specifically directed at me since you had quoted (with my implied permission ) my posting. Thanks.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Ordinarily the terms 'stealing' and 'thief' carry a lot of negative connotations; but when they are used in a context like:



Then they lose a lot of that weight, because everyone comes within that definition of being a thief.
Imho being denounced as a 'thief' in that sense doesn't mean very much.

I am not sure I understand the difference. A thief is anyone who steals. They are equated in my mind. I am sure Apple would call Psystar a thief based on their brief.

Dale

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by osnova

You are trying to appeal to morality. Yet, you are begging the question. The question is whether something as intangible as an "object" of copyright is "yours" in moral terms. There is nothing self-evident about this.
...
.

Of course it's MINE if it is something I created. Inherently mine. A creation just as would be a painting or statue I might create. There is no "begging of the question" at all. It is perfectly self-evident.

P.S. You are perfectly allowed to believe copyright infringement is not morally wrong, I myself choose to believe otherwise.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by kennyc

No, because the person was freely providing the music -- he is explicitly "giving the entertainment away. Somewhat equivalent to free software that you can download for nothing and if you choose to support with donations or pay what you want. Still the two are not exactly equivalent because in one case it it the "entertainment" that is being provided, not the rights to the song or to use it yourself.

We're really getting pretty far off the topic I think though so let's stick with that if possible.

No, the person is playing in the hopes of getting paid by the listeners. If you listen and don't pay, then, by your definition, you are a thief. Having a digital copy of a song, or book, or movie that you didn't pay for is the same thing. In both cases, the "content creator" is out only a "potential sale," which is a lawery way of saying "nothing." It is exactly the same topic.

[devilsadvocate]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

It should also be noted that it is in the legalities as well. Consider this news article: http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...6&pageNumber=1

In a motion filed Monday, Apple asked Alsup to grant a permanent injunction that would force Psystar to stop selling any computer bundled with Mac OS X; using, selling or even owning software that lets it crack Apple's OS encryption key to trick Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware; and "inducing, aiding or inducing others in infringing Apple's copyright."

"Psystar's whole business is premised on stealing from Apple," the motion read. "Psystar pirates Apple's software, circumvents Apple's technological protection measures and illegally benefits from the good will and reputation Apple has built. Psystar's conduct, if permitted to continue, will both tarnish Apple's reputation for excellence and lead to the proliferation of copycats who also will free ride on Apple's investments, infringe Apple's intellectual property rights and cause further irreparable injury."

This is in a legal brief, both stealing and pirating are words that are used by a company that many around here claim are against copyright.

Dale

And Apple's whole business is premised on stealing from the open-source community. It's the secret the sales staff don't want you to know, but...

BSD, which is the microkernel (some would say it's more than that since the filesystem exists in kernelspace and not userspace);
Darwin, which is a majority of what sits on top of the BSD code;
QT, which was used for designing the GUI; and
IOKit, which was used to make it all play nicely together;

are all open-source. Just as the BSD license allows Apple to tweak BSD code to run on certain hardware (and profit from it in this case), the same license allows others to mod that same code for the same reason. Apple does not own the rights to either Darwin or BSD. Even if you ignore all that (which many iPeople do)...

"2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use
or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one
computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time."

I haven't seen an actual Psystar box; does it have an Apple logo on it somewhere? If so, Apple is essentially asking for an injunction on its own EULA.

DISCLAIMER: I've used Macs. I have no problem with Macs. I have a problem with a company sending an armada of lawyers every time Steve Jobs' ego gets a bruise by someone who can put two and two together, while at the same time a majority of "his" OS was "borrowed" from the open-source community.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

I am not sure I understand the difference. A thief is anyone who steals. They are equated in my mind. I am sure Apple would call Psystar a thief based on their brief.

Dale

That is certainly what it says and is fundamentally based on "modifying" the OS to run on non-Apply hardware.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Of course it's MINE if it is something I created. Inherently mine. A creation just as would be a painting or statue I might create. There is no "begging of the question" at all. It is perfectly self-evident.

P.S. You are perfectly allowed to not believe copyright is morally wrong, I myself choose to believe otherwise.

This isn't about morals or even law, it's about reality.


Reality: people download creative works and have no guilt at all about it.

Reality: this behaviour is on the rise and cannot be stopped.

Reality: copyright is ineffectual and almost completely ignored.

Reality: DRM does not work and cannot work.

Reality: artists will always create art, even without being paid.

Reality: sharing is easier, getting easier and is enjoyed almost as much as the creative work being shared.


So, now we know all this, how do you intend to turn back the clock and make the digital behave in a analog way? How do you suppose you're going to bring your moral and ethical beliefs in line with the reality you face?

[osnova]

Originally Posted by kennyc

P.S. You are perfectly allowed to not believe copyright is morally wrong, I myself choose to believe otherwise.

One clarification. I believe violating the law is wrong. However, see the distinction between the malum in se and malum prohibitum crimes above.

Originally Posted by kennyc

Of course it's MINE if it is something I created. Inherently mine. A creation just as would be a painting or statue I might create. There is no "begging of the question" at all. It is perfectly self-evident.

First, a quick note, don't say "of course" because it is a telltale sign of begging the question.

The intangible result of your thought process would not be "yours" once you release it to the public without the copyright law granting you a limited "right" to control it after you have released it. Without the copyright law (a license granted to the author by the public), once the public has access to the result of your thought process, it is in the common domain.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

No, the person is playing in the hopes of getting paid by the listeners. If you listen and don't pay, then, by your definition, you are a thief. Having a digital copy of a song, or book, or movie that you didn't pay for is the same thing. In both cases, the "content creator" is out only a "potential sale," which is a lawery way of saying "nothing." It is exactly the same topic.

No, no, no. Hope is a different thing. And you are completely misconstruing or deliberately misstating my position. I said exactly what I believe wrt the musician, and now you are say I said something else. That's rich!

A digital copy is a thing, it is not music in the air or light from a movie or computer screen. If you have a copy of my IP without my permission, you are a thief. That's what I'm saying. You have deprived me of a sale, not a potential sale, an actual sale because you possess my property without my permission.

The thing that screws up everybody's reasoning in this is the physical instantiation of IP which is pretty much the way it's always been. It still is in fact, but the ability to make or distribute the "new" physical instantiation (read data file) is incredibly easy compared to what it was in the past. But in reality there really is no difference.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by osnova

..

First, a quick note, don't say "of course" because it is a telltale sign of begging the question.

The intangible result of your thought process would not be "yours" once you release it to the public without the copyright law granting you a limited "right" to control it after you have released it. Without the copyright law (a license granted to the author by the public), once the public has access to the result of your thought process, it is in the common domain.

Saying "of course" has nothing to do with 'begging the question'

Products of my labors are inherently mine, it's my choice what to do with them.

Forget copyright law, I'm not talking about copyright law. The law is ephemeral and varies from place to place and time to time. It is now time for many of the outdated concepts in our current law to change in light of intellectual properties.

I'm talking about fundamental rights to my property and of other ethical moral beings doing what is right with regard to that.

If you take something that is mine without my permission, you have stolen from me and you are a thief.