Copyright infringement doesn't fit into the legal definition of theft. Black's Law Dictionary defines "theft" as "[t]he felonious taking and removing of another's personal property with the intent of depriving the true owner of it." This is essentially the same as common law larceny.
"Infringement," by contrast, is "[a]n act that interferes with one of the exclusive rights of a patent, copyright, or trademark owner." This is clearly something quite different than theft.
Also, don't forget that theft is a crime, but most small-scale copyright infringement is not.
The words "theft of intellectual property" have indeed been used by courts to describe copyright infringement, but only very rarely. Westlaw turned up only 18 uses of this term, and mostly in unreported cases. I really don't think it's that common in IP law, except maybe when used by attorneys representing the recording and film industries, who are trying to influence the public lexicon by conflating the two legal concepts.
Wait - I'm not advocating copyright infringement, civil or criminal, or saying that piracy doesn't do any damage (though I think it does much less than copyright holders claim, and I think the damage to society from copying a CD is much less than stealing a physical copy). I'm just saying that I don't like it when record and movie companies use loaded criminal terms to get your attention, then turn around and sue you civilly to get your money.
The term "copyright infringement" is used not just because it's fluffy, but because it's the legal term for what's going on. The fact is, the statutory penalties for copyright infringement are shockingly high, but the fine for petty theft usually isn't. When copyright holders take you to court, you can bet they're suing under a civil copyright infringement theory, not referring your case to the police.
Actually, most copyright infringement still isn't a crime, even today. Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 506(a)(1), copyright infringemment isn't a crime unless it's done:
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000.
But here's my beef with the language that's used around the topic of file-sharing. It's that the MPAA and the RIAA want to have it both ways. They want to use the words "crime" and "theft" because they have moralistic overtones. Been to a movie recently? Seen the MPAA trailer? You know - the one featuring some kid jacking a car with a crowbar, a guy stealing an old lady's purse, and someone downloading a movie over a p2p network. "Downloading is a crime," explains the trailer.
But it's not all criminal, and, in fact the MPAA won't refer your case to the police, they'll go after you in civil court instead because the statutory penalties there are much higher than a measily fine for petty theft. That's the problem. They call it "criminal" and then smack you with a civil suit.
Actually, copyright infringement isn't even a crime, unless you're doing it (1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or (2) copying one or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, during any 180-day period. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 506(a)(1). Any other copying is civil copyright infringement, which, while still illegal, is not a crime.
By contrast, all theft is a crime. So, yeah, theft and copyright infringement, while both illegal, are different.
The thing that really gets me is that the RIAA and the MPAA want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to label all downloading a "crime" or "theft" (both terms have a nice, moral ring to them), then sue people in civil court for non-criminal copyright infringement. Why? Because the penalties for civil copyright infringement are staggeringly higher than criminal copyright infringement or petty theft.
In my mind, the question is: are you creating a derivative work?
If you're just putting Google Maps in a frame, and messing with the script to make it do what you want it to do, that's fine. If you take that map, make a print out, and post it all over town, then you're producing an illegal derivative work. Google gives you permission to print out its maps for personal use (via the "Print" button). Likewise, if you stich together two maps for your own desktop, that's probably de minimis infringement, and Google doesn't care.
Slashdot Mirror
Copyright infringement doesn't fit into the legal definition of theft. Black's Law Dictionary defines "theft" as "[t]he felonious taking and removing of another's personal property with the intent of depriving the true owner of it." This is essentially the same as common law larceny. "Infringement," by contrast, is "[a]n act that interferes with one of the exclusive rights of a patent, copyright, or trademark owner." This is clearly something quite different than theft. Also, don't forget that theft is a crime, but most small-scale copyright infringement is not. The words "theft of intellectual property" have indeed been used by courts to describe copyright infringement, but only very rarely. Westlaw turned up only 18 uses of this term, and mostly in unreported cases. I really don't think it's that common in IP law, except maybe when used by attorneys representing the recording and film industries, who are trying to influence the public lexicon by conflating the two legal concepts.
Wait - I'm not advocating copyright infringement, civil or criminal, or saying that piracy doesn't do any damage (though I think it does much less than copyright holders claim, and I think the damage to society from copying a CD is much less than stealing a physical copy). I'm just saying that I don't like it when record and movie companies use loaded criminal terms to get your attention, then turn around and sue you civilly to get your money.
The term "copyright infringement" is used not just because it's fluffy, but because it's the legal term for what's going on. The fact is, the statutory penalties for copyright infringement are shockingly high, but the fine for petty theft usually isn't. When copyright holders take you to court, you can bet they're suing under a civil copyright infringement theory, not referring your case to the police.
Actually, most copyright infringement still isn't a crime, even today. Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 506(a)(1), copyright infringemment isn't a crime unless it's done:
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000.
But here's my beef with the language that's used around the topic of file-sharing. It's that the MPAA and the RIAA want to have it both ways. They want to use the words "crime" and "theft" because they have moralistic overtones. Been to a movie recently? Seen the MPAA trailer? You know - the one featuring some kid jacking a car with a crowbar, a guy stealing an old lady's purse, and someone downloading a movie over a p2p network. "Downloading is a crime," explains the trailer.
But it's not all criminal, and, in fact the MPAA won't refer your case to the police, they'll go after you in civil court instead because the statutory penalties there are much higher than a measily fine for petty theft. That's the problem. They call it "criminal" and then smack you with a civil suit.
Actually, copyright infringement isn't even a crime, unless you're doing it (1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or (2) copying one or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, during any 180-day period. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 506(a)(1). Any other copying is civil copyright infringement, which, while still illegal, is not a crime.
By contrast, all theft is a crime. So, yeah, theft and copyright infringement, while both illegal, are different.
The thing that really gets me is that the RIAA and the MPAA want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to label all downloading a "crime" or "theft" (both terms have a nice, moral ring to them), then sue people in civil court for non-criminal copyright infringement. Why? Because the penalties for civil copyright infringement are staggeringly higher than criminal copyright infringement or petty theft.
In my mind, the question is: are you creating a derivative work? If you're just putting Google Maps in a frame, and messing with the script to make it do what you want it to do, that's fine. If you take that map, make a print out, and post it all over town, then you're producing an illegal derivative work. Google gives you permission to print out its maps for personal use (via the "Print" button). Likewise, if you stich together two maps for your own desktop, that's probably de minimis infringement, and Google doesn't care.
I don't agree. At best, posting a composite image would be considered creating a "derivative work" under copyright law. That's still not allowed.