From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat May 11 2002 - 17:39:34 MDT
Peter wrote
> lcorbin@tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) writes:
>
>> It's very similar with today's fascination with "child abuse".
>> You probably couldn't list very many societies and eras on the
>> right hand side of the sheet. For one thing, stealing (and
>> robbery) are conceptually quite clear.
>
> Quite clear? Can you describe a clear distinction
> between fair use copying of copyrighted material
> and theft of that intellectual property?
I can describe a clear distinction, but perhaps only to my
own satisfaction, and in a way that admittedly restricts what
might be generally understood as "stealing".
Allow me to present a story about an earlier time in which
the same distinction could have arisen. Once upon a time
a rich man owned a large knife, which was the envy of the
village, and which he hung on a rope in his garden. Whenever
he needed to cut anything, he'd take the object to his knife;
when the knife got dull, he'd sharpen it.
A neighbor wanted to use the knife, but the owner said no.
So the neighbor repeatedly sneaked into the man's garden
when the man was away on business, and used the knife. If
the knife was dull after his use, the neighbor would
sharpen it.
Eventually the man discovered his neighbor's illicit use
of his knife, and brought him before the magistrate, charging
him with theft. But the neighbor's lawyer argued, "this was
by no means theft! The accused never took the knife away
from the premises nor in any way deprived the owner of its
use. Perhaps there is some other charge the man wishes to
make, but no theft actually occurred."
I'm not sure how I'd argue; and presumably it would
be necessary to examine the other laws in force, or other
traditions, before judging. But even before IP, such a
case would make "stealing" somewhat unclear. Yet if the
man had hung his knife in a public, as opposed to a private
place, it would be very hard indeed to make a charge of
stealing stick.
Laws against plagiarism and copyrights are of pretty recent
origin. My take on them is that some societies might wish
to experiment with such laws to see if advancement in the
arts or sciences results, though it should be understood
that it does amount to an infringement of liberties. What
is clearly central in the more traditional meaning of "theft"
is that the owner has been directly harmed by the removal
of his property.
So I tend to agree with those who say we should try doing
without IP laws. In my opinion, your examples stretch the
primary reason that laws against theft exist.
Lee
> The CEO of Turner Broadcasting recently claimed "Any time
> you skip a commercial ... you're actually stealing the programming."
> Did he fail to confuse anyone? How clear is it that the government
> is stealing your land if it prevents you from playing loud music on
> that land?
>
> I'm sure you can come up with clear answers if having clear rules
> is your only goal, but in that case it will be hard to tell whether
> your answers are the ones which maximise economic efficiency or
> whatever else people to whom you may be trying to appeal value.
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Peter McCluskey | Free Jon Johansen!
> http://www.rahul.net/pcm |
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:00 MST