Stealing is stealing...

[btgc]

This days in our buses drivers will be prohibited to listen to radio (which they did for themselves). Idea is it's a public broadcast and thus requires licence. Someone has managed to push through laws allowing to earn cash from nothing. Note, radio stations already have paid to greedy licence operator, but now they ask to pay once more.

I believe world would be better place without good part of laws, licences and patents. Lawyers and bankers should get real jobs and stop living from legalized slavery. Musicians should go on tours not feed record industry and lawyers. If they can't play they have to work as a music teachers - if they have something to teach, of course.

Some day system will break, because it's corrupt and invalid.

 

[L David Tomei]

When it comes to copyright infringement or improper use of intellectual property in general, it is normally up to the owner of the copyright or intellectual property to defend any legal rights. It is possible that failure to act to defend those rights could result in the loss of those rights.

Regarding the question of theft of a "concept", personally I would consider the legal principle in patent law that refers to "those skilled in the arts". If "those skilled in the arts" would reasonably be expected to create a particular image, or come up with a particular concept or design, then there isn't much protection.

 

[rxmd]

When it comes to copyright infringement or improper use of intellectual property in general, it is normally up to the owner of the copyright or intellectual property to defend any legal rights. It is possible that failure to act to defend those rights could result in the loss of those rights.

No, that only applies to trademarks. Please remember that trademarks, copyright and patents are different things that operate differently.

 

[L David Tomei]

I agree with you. I was only referring to the fact that the owner of intellectual property can't sit back and expect anyone to step up and defend those rights. In any case, I try to avoid acting like an amateur lawyer.

 

[Paul T.]

So no, "stealing" is not stealing. It's really not the same as stealing, say, a car, where the car has a monetary value that it is worth exactly once and where the car is gone after the theft and the damage is exactly the value of the car.

Yes, stealing IS stealing.

This is a moral argument, not one of degree; you are saying that it isn't stealing, because someone is taking something you didn't really use, or that wasn't worth a lot.

But taking something that isn't worth a lot is still stealing. And sometime IP is worth a lot.

Plenty of people like to support your attitude because they make money out of it. In particular, big corporations like Getty are pushing for laxer control of orphan rights so they can make money. But once they've got control of a critical mass of images, do you think they'll be giving them away? No, sir.

Theft of items that [might] have negligible value is theft, however you package it.

 

[rxmd]

Yes, stealing IS stealing.

This is a moral argument, not one of degree; you are saying that it isn't stealing, because someone is taking something you didn't really use, or that wasn't worth a lot.

No, in fact that is not what I am saying. I am saying that there is a conceptual difference between the act where A takes X from B and B then no longer has X (stealing), and the act where A takes X from B and then A and B each have X (copyright infringement). In the first case what matters is the value of X; in the second case X can't even be assigned a single value, because what matters is revenue from some usage rights in some contexts, that can be difficult to calculate and where it can be impossible to actually prove what amount was lost (if at all). The two are logically not the same thing. Really, the only thing they have in common, at all, is that there is some damage involved.

This is neither an argument of degree nor a moral argument; it is a pure argument of logic and terminology. There is no simple analogy here; copyright infringement is a thing all in its own, however wrong, and different from stealing. Calling it "stealing" means using muddy and unclear terminology, and possibly, as often in these cases, unclear terminology also implies unclear ideas.

 

[btgc]

In the first case what matters is the value of X; in the second case X can't even be assigned a single value,

In second case there's a term "not gained income" which is oxymoron because people who used X would not consider buying it. So X neither has fixed value or there's any income lost.

 

[L David Tomei]

I think the word "stealing" in normal conversation refers to the act of taking someone else's property without rights or permission. The generally accepted meaning of the word is rather clear although if we were all here to craft a law or prepare a legal brief, the term would require a proper legal definition. In any event, I agree that it can (but not necessarily) be foolish to loosely throw around terms such as "theft" and "stealing".

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Elsewhere I posted a link to a British court decision about a picture that was similar, clearly not identical, but also clearly inspired by another picture, and the court found the first to be in infringement of the second on copyright grounds.

(images linked to from the court decision)

I find that highly problematic because I believe that ideas and concepts should not be copyrightable, only their manifestation in the form of concrete things - images, texts and so on. Everybody can have an idea and a concept, but the creative step and the step that involves work it's turning it into an actual, well, work. Otherwise you'll end up with lots of copyright lawsuits about "picture of president Obama, in three-quarter portrait, looking right and down".

I totally agree, this is very troubling. Ask a court of lions to rule on the savoriness of birdseed based on food regulation conceived by the dog food industry.

 

[Sparrow]

Don't forget there is also Trespass to Goods if one can't make Theft stick ... and as someone else pointed out Patent, Copyright and Trademark law ... I find it a little odd that people think the law is there to be fair or just, that isn't necessarily the case in fact.

 

[rxmd]

I find it a little odd that people think the law is there to be fair or just, that isn't necessarily the case in fact.

Yeah, and the idea that the law should make sense, totally overrated too.

 

[Paul T.]

No, in fact that is not what I am saying. I am saying that there is a conceptual difference between the act where A takes X from B and B then no longer has X (stealing), and the act where A takes X from B and then A and B each have X (copyright infringement).

The notion of theft is not, and never has been, restricted to physical possession. These arguments were played out in the 1700s, when artists like William Hogarth had to fight knockoff merchants who stole his work and used exactly the same arguments.

In that case, they were trying to argue that new technology, ie engraving, rendered old concepts of ownership - what we'd all IP - redundant. That argument was invalid then, and it's invalid today.

I should also say I've heard all these arguments dozens of times from people trying to steal from me. People will use any argument to make money or avoid paying out - but so far, they've always caved in and either paid me money or removed the offending work, because they ultimately have to recognise that lifting copyrighted material is theft.

(Incidentally, I'm not talking about photos lifted from websites, I wouldn't put anything crucial on there without it being watermarked up the jaxsie).

 

[Sparrow]

Yeah, and the idea that the law should make sense, totally overrated too.

Not to mention the cost of brining an action, geez ... £219 an hour for my solicitor, and god alone knows what the brief costs these days

 

[gdi]

It is understandable that people want to see support for their own position in the definitions of intellectual property and theft - thus the attempts to distinguish between "stealing" and "copyright infringement". People are free to make those arguments for their personal reasons.

But, and I speak only from the perspective of a non-lawyer in the US, the matter of whether "creations of the mind" are property in the eyes of the law is clearly settled - intellectual property does exist. And, the concept and definition of theft of intellectual property exists and is accepted legally. That is simply the way it is; it can be changed if enough people pressure their representatives (or vote in new ones) to support their position. Yes, they would be up against mega-corporations, but it can be done, just look at the SOPA/PIPA protests.

The same goes for the moral argument, everyone has to follow their own morals but one can't discount the moral argument out of hand. If you review the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights you will see that the concept is in Article 27:

"(1) Everyone has the right to freely participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author."

So, it is clear that, based on common and practical definitions, intellectual property exists and can be stolen, and doing so can be considered immoral. Yes arguments an be made that the situation can and should be changed, but trying the redefine reality just doesn't hold water.

 

[rxmd]

The notion of theft is not, and never has been, restricted to physical possession. These arguments were played out in the 1700s, when artists like William Hogarth had to fight knockoff merchants who stole his work and used exactly the same arguments.

In that case, they were trying to argue that new technology, ie engraving, rendered old concepts of ownership - what we'd all IP - redundant. That argument was invalid then, and it's invalid today.

I don't think I have to defend the notion of "physical possession" at all, since you just introduced yourself right there; a classic straw man argument.

Theft is usually pretty well defined. It usually means to permanently deprive someone else of property. Go look it up. Copyright infringement does not deprive you of property, after all the original of whatever gets copied it remains with you. Instead, it deprives you of some reasonable hope of future income. This is a conceptually different thing.

With theft, A takes X from B. B is left without X. The damage is X.
With copyright infringement, A takes a copy of X from B. Because it's a copy, B remains in possession of X as if nothing had happened. The damage incurred does not result from B being left without X, but from B being deprived of some possible income.
Note how the damage is not identical to the thing being taken.

It would probably be theft if I copied the image, then broke into your house and deleted all copies of it on your hard drives and took the negative.

I don't care who what how in the 18th century. It's the 21st century now and we have a legal concept of copyright infringement that is different from the legal concept of theft, for a reason. You are just being unclear in your terms.

I should also say I've heard all these arguments dozens of times from people trying to steal from me.

Well now you are hearing this argument from me, and I'm not trying to steal from you. Consequently, you should probably stop considering the argument merely on grounds of your own assumptions about the evil intent of whoever brings it forth.

 

[rxmd]

So, it is clear that, based on common and practical definitions, intellectual property exists and can be stolen, and doing so can be considered immoral. Yes arguments an be made that the situation can and should be changed, but trying the redefine reality just doesn't hold water.

Intellectual property being stolen implies that you then don't have it anymore, which is obviously not the case, hence the need for a distinction in terms. This is all the argument is about, not whether intellectual property exists or not or whoever makes which laws.

 

[FrankS]

It's no wonder really. There aren't that many forms of property that you can take and the owner keeps them anyway. There aren't many forms of "stealing" where the damage calculations are similarly hypothetical, as in based on the assumption that the "thief" would actually have bought the work, where this assumption itself is taken for granted in a completely unsubstantiated fashion.

Copyright infringement is convenience-driven - it occurs because it is so convenient to take things for free. If the only way to get your work was to pay for it, many "thieves" wouldn't take them to begin with, there would be no income, and hence there is no loss of income either, because zero minus zero is zero.

So no, "stealing" is not stealing. It's really not the same as stealing, say, a car, where the car has a monetary value that it is worth exactly once and where the car is gone after the theft and the damage is exactly the value of the car.

Claiming it's the same thing and claiming enormous damages for allegedly lost income is really sour grapes and the stomping of John's dinosaur horde. Nobody denies its a problem and there is a real need for a solution, but the solution has to be adequate to the problem of copying, not to the completely problem of physical theft. Mixing up the words is not going to help.

How would you feel if someone decided that it would be okay to use your car without your permission, but only while you were sleeping, so you would still have full use of it when you need it? They would replace the gas they used, so there would be no cost to you.

Yes, there is the added mileage on the car, but I'm just using this as an analogy, imperfect as it is, where someone uses your property but you are still in possession of it.

Edit: this example is meant to illustrate the idea of someone taking something from you but you still have it.

 

[rxmd]

How would you feel if someone decided that it would be okay to use your car without your permission, but only while you were sleeping, so you would still have full use of it when you need it? They would replace the gas they used, so there would be no cost to you.

Yes, there is the added mileage on the car, but I'm just using this as an analogy, imperfect as it is, where someone uses your property but you are still in possession of it.

I guess I would be pissed. If someone copied my car the car maker would probably be pissed. The copied car wouldn't affect me much as I haven't made my income dependent of being the only guy in town with a car. I wonder, though, why it is relevant how I feel in this case.

I think, however, that the analogy is flawed because the problem of copyright infringement revolves around loss of income.

 

[Aristophanes]

How would you feel if someone decided that it would be okay to use your car without your permission, but only while you were sleeping, so you would still have full use of it when you need it? They would replace the gas they used, so there would be no cost to you.

Yes, there is the added mileage on the car, but I'm just using this as an analogy, imperfect as it is, where someone uses your property but you are still in possession of it.

Wrong analogy. The car was not copied. Using a car depreciates a physical asset and adds risk to the consequences of a crash or insurance claims.

Digital files of any type are designed to be copied with no fidelity loss to the original, therefore no depreciation and no risk of compromise of the content's initial production fidelity.

What depreciation there is a loss of market power as every copy makes the one before it less valuable.

The law has attempted to make copying an act of theft. It is not working because the technical structure of digital data is to enable copying. So they've gone after sharing copied files, but the cost of remedy and enforcement vastly exceeds the economic losses. They've tried digital locks on content, but all have so far been broken and this looks unlikely to change. They've made it illegal to break such a lock, but all it takes in a world of infinite copy capability is a single, anonymous transgression to make that attempt useless.

Copyright protection is different than theft by legal definition. It's a question of deprivation (theft) versus authorization (copy rights). Merging the two has complicated the economics. There may be a theft of economic opportunity, but if that is the case, then why make a product that can be infinitely copied anonymously? A large part of the blame has to go to producers of content who want all the economic benefits of digital and then want to be free riders on the state to enforce what are civil, private property rights. This socializes the loss and creates monopolies of content, such as the numerous extensions of copyright.

So then content suppliers turn to moral arguments. But the whole point of commercial law is to take the morality out of contract so adjudication is done on the terms and not the emotion or subjective perspective.

Then people start threads about theft of content which turn into society-bashing morality arguments. And here we are.

 

[btgc]

How would you feel if someone decided that it would be okay to use your car without your permission, but only while you were sleeping, so you would still have full use of it when you need it? They would replace the gas they used, so there would be no cost to you.

I think copy of image of my car is closer analogy. Besides that, copy of image created by me. I still can use and sell my picture. I still can use my car (artists and software developers).

There's difference between those who copy music, movies or software for their OWN USE and those who copy to SELL. I know your argument (theft is theft) but those who use for own will NEVER buy same product for money. Well, almost NEVER. So owners can not count this as lost income. EVER.