[B5JMS] B5 Bootleg Ethics...

[b5jms-admin at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Per Abrahamsen <abraham at dina.kvl.dk>
Date: 21 Apr 2001 20:20:48 -0700
Lines: 30

"Jeff Vavasour" <jeffv at physics.ubc.ca> writes:

> Being a part of anti-piracy discussions in other groups, the retort
> I've seen others give to this argument is that you are not deprived
> of your car and so the pro-piracy people therefore claim it cannot
> be equated with theft and that the law is flawed in that regard.

The point is that the analogue between theft of physical property and
unauthorized copying of intellectual property is flawed, and only
serve to confuse the issue.

The law does not regard unauthorized copying as theft.  It is in many
cases illegal, but that doesn't make it theft.  There are lots of
illegal actions that are not theft.  Thus, the law does not suffer
from this particular flaw.

> For some reason, some people seem to disregard the rights of artists
> completely.  

Among these, the people who created the US constitution.  Copyright
law in the US exists to promote the progress of arts and science, not
to protect the rights of the artists.

Of course, one can argue that the artists *should* have some rights.
Preferable inalienable, so they can't be sold or otherwise given up.
European legal tradition support this.  So does your examples.

But that does not justify calling unauthorized copying for theft.
Immoral and illegal, maybe, but theft, no.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 21 Apr 2001 20:59:46 -0700
Lines: 41

>The law does not regard unauthorized copying as theft.  It is in many
>cases illegal, but that doesn't make it theft.  There are lots of
>illegal actions that are not theft.  Thus, the law does not suffer
>from this particular flaw.

I'd like to know where you found this, because as I read copyright law, this is
also covered by the term "theft of intellectual property."  

And I'd love to see you make the argument to a cop, "Well, no, what I was doing
wasn't THEFT, it was just ILLEGAL, so that's okay."  Any judge in any court in
the country would laugh you out of the box.  >> For some reason, some people
seem to disregard the rights of artists
>> completely.  
>
>Among these, the people who created the US constitution.  Copyright
>law in the US exists to promote the progress of arts and science, not
>to protect the rights of the artists.

Not true.  Writers and artists have fought for ages to maintain and enhance
copyright laws for their protection.  One of the foremost figures was Mark
Twain, who was in a constant battle to ensure that the copyright laws were
adhered to and expanded to protect his works.  (Among his best quotes, "Any
time a copyright law is to be made or revised, the idiots assemble.")

The sole means by which a writer can make money from his work is by protecting
the use thereof.  This is part of the big battle on the net...creative works
are not "data" to be freely transmitted, they are the property of the person
who created it.

You are not entitled to copy it for sale or distribution to others.  Period.

 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2001 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)