Theft does not require the lose of a material item. By copying illegally, you are taking the right to control distribution away from the content owner."
Nothing is taken away. He can still distribute the material the same way as before. I see also your intentional abuse of the term "taking" to be broadened to mean "inconvenience someone". Using your ignorant logic, a bum sleeping on someone's driveway is really a thief since he has taken away the driveway owner's right to drive on it. Thankfully, the law recognizes (despite the occasional lying judge) that theft is one thing, trespassing is another, rape is another, copyright infringement is another, and so-on.
So what is your problem? Ignorance or ill will? Copyright infringement and theft are two separate situations. The claim that copyright infringement = theft is entirely false. This is not a matter of opinion. Just look up the terms.
" but that doesn't mean he's wrong in using the term "IP theft."
He is wrong, however, due to the definition of the term theft. Nothing like theft occurs in anything he discusses.
"Theft of intellectual property has been recognized by the law for a long, long time"
It hasn't. For one thing, the phrase you used is an oxymoron.
"If you create a Star Wars comic book, when Lucas had already arranged for Dark Horse Comics to create a derivative work, you are infringing on Lucas's ability to decide how derivative works are handled. You have abrogated one of his rights for yourself. You've stolen from him."
This statement has a great leap to get to the last sentence. You've violated his copyright and character control. However, nothing was stolen from him. If we are going to engage in meaningful reform, it is time to stop lying about copyright infringement, and stop making such great leaps. Theft is illegal. Copyright infringement is illegal. It's pretty silly to confuse the two.
I guess, but stealing of IP is never really discussed here. It is possible, though, and it does happen, whenever someone breaks into the CD store and steal CD's.
"He may be the enemy but he certainly knows what he's talking about"
If he is lying intentionally, then he should be given no credibility.
"Yeah, because anyone that doesn't agree with you is either ignorant or lying, right krell? Par for the course."
He did lie with his use of theft. This is not my opinion: all you have to do is look up the meaning of the term. If I made the same false claim he is making, I'd be a liar too.
"Interesting that you would call into question a Supreme Court justice's credentials....
Regardless of his credentials, he told a whopping lie. Anyone who knows a thing about Grokster would know it is impossible to steal with it. Maybe he is a great justice in other areas, but he blew it on this one. Also, it's not my definition. It's the actual definition. Look it pu sometime. I did. I'd be either an idiot or liar if I did claim copyright infringement is theft, since there is no reason to make this claim.
"Can it be agreed upon that theft is when you take something away, without permission, from someone else so that they no longer possess it, or as much of it, as they had before the theft? Then copyright infringement _IS_ in fact, a type of theft."
No, since the taking away part you describe as necessary is not present in copyright infringement.
"Therefore fair use copying isn't stealing, since the copyright holder has implicitly given permission to copy for such purposes. "
Actually, it isn't stealing, since no form of copying is stealing (whether it is unfair use or fair use)
"But make no mistake.... copyright infringement is most definitely stealing."
BR
Ermmm. yeah. Despite the fact that it does not meet the definition. Chalk this up to the weak argument: "copyright infringement is theft because I SAY it is, no explanation necessary."
You might have a point, except you forgot to make one. Copyright infringement fails to meet the definition of theft (mainly the part about taking)
"And unauthorized copying is a form of stealing"
This statement of yours has the same problem. "Taking" is missing. I do not apologize for judges who fail to look at the dictionary. If I ask you to come up with one example of theft resulting from copyright infringement, you won't be able to produce one.
Similar thing happened, but the main thing going on now is the use of "neocon" as a catch-all term for any conservative the user of the term does not like.
"Originally, the word had a positive meaning (one with liberal views, supporting individual liberty)."
Since liberalism itself evolved (in the US) to mean more power for the state at the expense of individual liberty, it's clear that liberalism redefined itself (a more fundamental matter than the mere situation of conservatives insulting it.) The "positive meaning" no longer applies in most ways.
"Today, the right to make a copy for personal use has been extended to making a copy to share with friends"
These guys object to my right to watch what I paid for. Case in point: I have a few out-region DVD's. In order to be able to watch them on my DVD player, I had to crack them (using a utility that breaks the CSS code) and then re-burn them as region free. The RIAA and MPAA guys oppose even this. The DVD region system was a strong disincentive for me to buy these few DVD's, but I bought them anyway. If the MPAA is so concerned about copying cutting into sales, then why do they (1) discourage sales by having the DVD region system and (2) encourage me to crack and copy DVD's just to be able to watch them on my own player?
"Extreme #(2)> Everyone has an incentive to use the common IP resources; no one has an incentive to create them. (And no, communism does not work and the broad population will not create free stuff for the benefit of mankind without compensation.)"
This is not about communism, since communism is all about brutal totalitarian dictatorship. Anyway, I'm getting happier and happier with this extreme. Why? More and more of the content I am finding and enjoying is made by people for the pure fun of it in the hopes that other people will like it. Here's just one example: http://kupras.net/gollum.swf Yes, I laugh at this one.
"Electronics manufacturers have somewhat less to lose than content producers, but both are going to lose in the long run as long as fair use is translated to "free music and movies.""
If things degenerate to free music and free movies, we'd still need electronics to play them on. How could the electronics manufacturers lose? Or are you referring to how if media because driven by the customers instead of by bizarre descrees from companies to buy everything all over again in a new format ever 8 years, the hardware guys lose out? Because you don't have to keep buying new players for every new format change? That kind of loss is....acceptible.
"It is proper to call the act of removing money from the content owner's pocket theft."
Yes.... which has nothing to do with copyright infringement.
"You can say "I just made a copy" but that does not change the fact that you accessed something I should have been paid for to enable your access"
Accessed? Like in your wallet example? Theft is theft. Period. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. Period. Sounds like you are discussing some sort of unauthorized access. There are other forms of unauthorized access which are also not theft (such as trespassing). The person who has "just made a copy" is guilty of copying, not stealing.
"It's obvious that the RIAA hasn't cornered the market on "spin"."
It is not spin to point out abuse of words and encourage accurate usage in accordance with actual definitions. Copyright infringement and theft are two different crimes. No one has ever shown even one example of anything being stolen via p2p.
You must, because apparently you are a time traveller. As for an experience more typical for the rest of us, I read the first collection, "Callahan's Crosstime Saloon" not long after it came out in 1977. I awaited a sequel, and special ordered "Time Travelers Strictly Cash" when it came out in 1981. You will see the order (for those of us without time machines) here.
"Reading the whole article, I think his point was to mislead"
He did lie about a couple of situations being theft, when in fact no theft was ever involved.
"For me, fair use is being able to backup my cds onto my harddrive and encode them in any format I please for my mp3 player."
That about does it for me, too. Add to this DVD/video content (including anything I download or view online) and being able to view such content on my DVD player.
he says: "don't believe their creations will be adequately protected from IP theft and other unfair...."
Considering that it is impossible to steal IP (you can only copy it), he has no idea what he is talking about. Either that, or he is intentionally lying. He also quotes a Grokster judge who said that Grokster was theft, and says that this judge is tech-savvy. How can he be? If he knew a thing about Grokster, he'd know that no theft ever took place on it.
"Then they should regard living in civilization as a gift since they have a reduced bill for its upkeep."
Nice substitution of "paying for its upkeep" for what the money really goes for: to enrich and empower the rulers. You know, the version of the golden rule that is "Those that make the rules get the gold". Of course, the rulers always say they are robbing everyone in order to "help society". Your "upkeep civilization" wording shows that that you have bought into it.
You got that right. "Speculative fiction" is a dumb euphemism anyway. Technically, Tom Clancy's book(s) about all-out war between the US and USSR are "speculative fiction".... but they sure as hell aren't scifi.
Time Travelers Strictly Cash, the hilarious (and poignant) first book in the "Callahan's" series. "
"Time Travelers Strictly Cash" is actually the second Callahan's book from what I recall (and from what Robinson says in the link you gave). It has been a while since I have read them (back then there were only two), so I don't know if the reading order even matters.
"So when will they get back to playing music again? (as opposed to the "c-is-silent" noise)"
This "noise" they call music! They need to go back to playing Benny Goodman and the Tommy Dorsey Orchestra. Now THAT is real music! Those young whippersnappers have no idea what they are missing!
Slashdot Mirror
Theft does not require the lose of a material item. By copying illegally, you are taking the right to control distribution away from the content owner."
Nothing is taken away. He can still distribute the material the same way as before. I see also your intentional abuse of the term "taking" to be broadened to mean "inconvenience someone". Using your ignorant logic, a bum sleeping on someone's driveway is really a thief since he has taken away the driveway owner's right to drive on it. Thankfully, the law recognizes (despite the occasional lying judge) that theft is one thing, trespassing is another, rape is another, copyright infringement is another, and so-on.
So what is your problem? Ignorance or ill will? Copyright infringement and theft are two separate situations. The claim that copyright infringement = theft is entirely false. This is not a matter of opinion. Just look up the terms.
" but that doesn't mean he's wrong in using the term "IP theft."
He is wrong, however, due to the definition of the term theft. Nothing like theft occurs in anything he discusses.
"Theft of intellectual property has been recognized by the law for a long, long time"
It hasn't. For one thing, the phrase you used is an oxymoron.
"If you create a Star Wars comic book, when Lucas had already arranged for Dark Horse Comics to create a derivative work, you are infringing on Lucas's ability to decide how derivative works are handled. You have abrogated one of his rights for yourself. You've stolen from him."
This statement has a great leap to get to the last sentence. You've violated his copyright and character control. However, nothing was stolen from him. If we are going to engage in meaningful reform, it is time to stop lying about copyright infringement, and stop making such great leaps. Theft is illegal. Copyright infringement is illegal. It's pretty silly to confuse the two.
"Of course it's possible."
I guess, but stealing of IP is never really discussed here. It is possible, though, and it does happen, whenever someone breaks into the CD store and steal CD's.
"He may be the enemy but he certainly knows what he's talking about"
If he is lying intentionally, then he should be given no credibility.
"Yeah, because anyone that doesn't agree with you is either ignorant or lying, right krell? Par for the course."
He did lie with his use of theft. This is not my opinion: all you have to do is look up the meaning of the term. If I made the same false claim he is making, I'd be a liar too.
"Interesting that you would call into question a Supreme Court justice's credentials....
Regardless of his credentials, he told a whopping lie. Anyone who knows a thing about Grokster would know it is impossible to steal with it. Maybe he is a great justice in other areas, but he blew it on this one. Also, it's not my definition. It's the actual definition. Look it pu sometime. I did. I'd be either an idiot or liar if I did claim copyright infringement is theft, since there is no reason to make this claim.
"Can it be agreed upon that theft is when you take something away, without permission, from someone else so that they no longer possess it, or as much of it, as they had before the theft? Then copyright infringement _IS_ in fact, a type of theft."
No, since the taking away part you describe as necessary is not present in copyright infringement.
"Therefore fair use copying isn't stealing, since the copyright holder has implicitly given permission to copy for such purposes. "
Actually, it isn't stealing, since no form of copying is stealing (whether it is unfair use or fair use)
"But make no mistake.... copyright infringement is most definitely stealing."
BR Ermmm. yeah. Despite the fact that it does not meet the definition. Chalk this up to the weak argument: "copyright infringement is theft because I SAY it is, no explanation necessary."
"If you claim that the SCOTUS isn't THE definitive source of interpretation of law (in the US) then you are a liar."
Words retain meaning whether or not the courts/law agree. There's simply no evidence that copyright infringement is theft: you have not provided any.
"Of course there are arguments as to why copyright violation is theft "
I have yet to see an actual argument. One with any substance. Typically, the weak defenses of the false claim fall into two pathetic groups:
1) "It is theft because I say it is. Meanings don't matter: only my opinion does"
or
2) "Copyright infringement is a crime. Theft is a crime. Therefore, copyright infringement is theft."
Do we need help finding any real argument? Yes. There haven't been any yet.
"Copyright infringment is theft. Period"
You might have a point, except you forgot to make one. Copyright infringement fails to meet the definition of theft (mainly the part about taking)
"And unauthorized copying is a form of stealing"
This statement of yours has the same problem. "Taking" is missing. I do not apologize for judges who fail to look at the dictionary. If I ask you to come up with one example of theft resulting from copyright infringement, you won't be able to produce one.
Similar thing happened, but the main thing going on now is the use of "neocon" as a catch-all term for any conservative the user of the term does not like.
"Originally, the word had a positive meaning (one with liberal views, supporting individual liberty)."
Since liberalism itself evolved (in the US) to mean more power for the state at the expense of individual liberty, it's clear that liberalism redefined itself (a more fundamental matter than the mere situation of conservatives insulting it.) The "positive meaning" no longer applies in most ways.
"Today, the right to make a copy for personal use has been extended to making a copy to share with friends"
These guys object to my right to watch what I paid for. Case in point: I have a few out-region DVD's. In order to be able to watch them on my DVD player, I had to crack them (using a utility that breaks the CSS code) and then re-burn them as region free. The RIAA and MPAA guys oppose even this. The DVD region system was a strong disincentive for me to buy these few DVD's, but I bought them anyway. If the MPAA is so concerned about copying cutting into sales, then why do they (1) discourage sales by having the DVD region system and (2) encourage me to crack and copy DVD's just to be able to watch them on my own player?
"Extreme #(2)> Everyone has an incentive to use the common IP resources; no one has an incentive to create them. (And no, communism does not work and the broad population will not create free stuff for the benefit of mankind without compensation.)"
This is not about communism, since communism is all about brutal totalitarian dictatorship. Anyway, I'm getting happier and happier with this extreme. Why? More and more of the content I am finding and enjoying is made by people for the pure fun of it in the hopes that other people will like it. Here's just one example: http://kupras.net/gollum.swf Yes, I laugh at this one.
"Electronics manufacturers have somewhat less to lose than content producers, but both are going to lose in the long run as long as fair use is translated to "free music and movies.""
If things degenerate to free music and free movies, we'd still need electronics to play them on. How could the electronics manufacturers lose? Or are you referring to how if media because driven by the customers instead of by bizarre descrees from companies to buy everything all over again in a new format ever 8 years, the hardware guys lose out? Because you don't have to keep buying new players for every new format change? That kind of loss is....acceptible.
"It is proper to call the act of removing money from the content owner's pocket theft."
Yes.... which has nothing to do with copyright infringement.
"You can say "I just made a copy" but that does not change the fact that you accessed something I should have been paid for to enable your access"
Accessed? Like in your wallet example? Theft is theft. Period. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. Period. Sounds like you are discussing some sort of unauthorized access. There are other forms of unauthorized access which are also not theft (such as trespassing). The person who has "just made a copy" is guilty of copying, not stealing.
" (Wal-Mart won't try to sell bootleg movies, but will be more than happy to sell you a region-free DVD player)."
Which Wal-Mart is this???
"It's obvious that the RIAA hasn't cornered the market on "spin"."
It is not spin to point out abuse of words and encourage accurate usage in accordance with actual definitions. Copyright infringement and theft are two different crimes. No one has ever shown even one example of anything being stolen via p2p.
You must, because apparently you are a time traveller. As for an experience more typical for the rest of us, I read the first collection, "Callahan's Crosstime Saloon" not long after it came out in 1977. I awaited a sequel, and special ordered "Time Travelers Strictly Cash" when it came out in 1981. You will see the order (for those of us without time machines) here.
"Reading the whole article, I think his point was to mislead"
He did lie about a couple of situations being theft, when in fact no theft was ever involved.
"For me, fair use is being able to backup my cds onto my harddrive and encode them in any format I please for my mp3 player."
That about does it for me, too. Add to this DVD/video content (including anything I download or view online) and being able to view such content on my DVD player.
he says: "don't believe their creations will be adequately protected from IP theft and other unfair...."
Considering that it is impossible to steal IP (you can only copy it), he has no idea what he is talking about. Either that, or he is intentionally lying. He also quotes a Grokster judge who said that Grokster was theft, and says that this judge is tech-savvy. How can he be? If he knew a thing about Grokster, he'd know that no theft ever took place on it.
He sharpened his fangs carefully, didn't me?
....a book which I found to be an excellent adaptation of an even better movie. Oh wait.... the book came first. But that is how it seems, anyway.
"Then they should regard living in civilization as a gift since they have a reduced bill for its upkeep."
Nice substitution of "paying for its upkeep" for what the money really goes for: to enrich and empower the rulers. You know, the version of the golden rule that is "Those that make the rules get the gold". Of course, the rulers always say they are robbing everyone in order to "help society". Your "upkeep civilization" wording shows that that you have bought into it.
"Come on. It's sci-fi."
You got that right. "Speculative fiction" is a dumb euphemism anyway. Technically, Tom Clancy's book(s) about all-out war between the US and USSR are "speculative fiction".... but they sure as hell aren't scifi.
Time Travelers Strictly Cash, the hilarious (and poignant) first book in the "Callahan's" series. "
"Time Travelers Strictly Cash" is actually the second Callahan's book from what I recall (and from what Robinson says in the link you gave). It has been a while since I have read them (back then there were only two), so I don't know if the reading order even matters.
"don't think I've read any of Spider's books just once."
:)
Nice wording: the situation applies also to those who have never even seen one of his books
"But after what they did to troopers, I hope they stay away from all the rest."
I read "Troopers" right before seeing the movie. I found that it was a rather close adaptation: true to much of the detail and the spirit of the book.
"So when will they get back to playing music again? (as opposed to the "c-is-silent" noise)"
This "noise" they call music! They need to go back to playing Benny Goodman and the Tommy Dorsey Orchestra. Now THAT is real music! Those young whippersnappers have no idea what they are missing!