Re: Re: "Why It's Wrong To Call Copyright Infringement 'Theft'"

Joseph,

"Copyright infringement" isn't the same as theft.  "Identity theft" isn't the same as real theft (regardless of whether people object to the term).  That's the real issue here, and it's a pretty silly one.  You can't get "piracy is okay" from "piracy isn't the same as theft."  So I honestly don't see why people waste time arguing over it.

Copyright is clearly a form of property, created by a government-granted monopoly on a specific work.  But saying that copyright infringement is theft is like saying that trespassing on a plot of land is theft.  If trespass occurs in conjunction with an actual theft, they're still two separate crimes.

Identity "theft" is much the same.  When you use someone else's identity to, say, run up a credit card bill, two separate crimes get committed.  The first is the filing of a fraudulent credit card application (a "trespass" on your personal identity).  The second is the using of the card to get money, where a bunch of iPads disappear from a warehouse and a debt is levied against the identity owner.  That's the theft, and in this case it's a theft against the warehouse owner.

Identity is a unique form of property, as you cannot legally sell or trade it.  It's certainly difficult to compare "my identity" to an ottoman or an SUV, just as it's difficult to compare ownership of your car to ownership of a piece of land, or to compare owning land to owning a copyright.  These discussions are futile if we can't accept that "property" means different things depending on the nature of the owned thing, and that the nature of the property dictates the collection of rights that come with "ownership."

The whole argument here rests on the notion that, because "pirates" have not yet been seen objecting to the term "identity theft," and "identity" is intangible, intangible things can be owned and therefore copyright infringement is theft.  But in fact, the only reason the term hasn't been objected to before now is because the argument is novel; nobody's ever had a reason to object to it.

Personally I don't care if the term "identity theft" stays in use, but a hard look at what actually happens in identity theft only shows that "identity theft" isn't theft; it doesn't prove that "copyright infringement" is.

I did make a boneheaded mistake in declaring copyright "non-rivalrous."  While the copyrighted work is not rivalrous (my reading the work doesn't prevent you from reading it at the same time), the copyright itself is (you can't grant multiple publishers first publication rights, for example).  I still think that the rivalrousness of identity and non-rivalrousness of a copyrighted work is important in comparing identity to copyright.  But upon reflection, I don't see how comparing the two sheds any real light on the "copyright is theft" debate, a debate which I find rather silly in any case.

 
It's pretty obvious from our last encounter that you've decided -- based on nothing more than an argument for a slightly more permissive copyright system -- that I'm an evil pirate and probably a communist and hence laughably wrong about everything.  It seems pretty futile for me to try and persuade you of... well... anything we don't already agree on.  Or to persuade you that there are things which we do agree on.  So here's what I'm going to do.  I'm going to unsubscribe, then I'm going to recommit myself to spending less time arguing with people on the Internet and more time writing nifty things.  Oh, and releasing it all under Creative Commons licenses.  


Bryce Anderson


http://neonderbycars.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/darth_schmoo


May you live in exponential times.







________________________________
 From: joseph harris <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] 
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: [ebook-community] Re: "Why It's Wrong To Call Copyright Infringement 'Theft'"
 


On 22/04/2012 14:08, Bryce Anderson wrote:
> Tangibility isn't the defining feature here.  Non-rivalrousness is.  Personal identity is by its nature a rivalrous good, where if you use mine it makes me responsible for the financial and legal consequences for your actions.  In a more abstract sense, the more people using an identity, the less value that identity has for its intended purpose: identifying a single person.
>
> So I would argue that the similarities here are only superficial.
>
>  
> Bryce Anderson

Hullo Bryce, Good to see you are still about to split hairs.

I think you are confusing personal identity with the trappings of 
personal identity in the digital age. That is, of course, while- and 
perhaps why - you have moved the goal posts. :-)


Tangibility and intangibility are facts rather than attributes. The 
normal argument is about ownership, and whether the same rules of 
ownership can apply to both as property. Non-rivalrousness needs 
definition; but I'll assume you are looking at something to do with 
adaptability by another. That would be merely fraudulent usage, and 
gives no liability to the real owner. Like all situations that can be 
argued, the issue of responsibility needs proof, and that is true for 
all instances of contest.





The value of identity is not financial; goods and monies may accrue to a 
person, and they may be regarded as belonging to that individual. But 
whether those possessions exist or not has no effect on the personal 
identity. Otherwise you might say all the people named Joseph Harris 
[and there are many] share one personal identity. I trust that is an 
obvious nonsense.

The original issue, the comparability of copyright with personal 
identity in the general context of property, is not touched by your 
objection.

Joseph Harris

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------
Post a message:   ebook-community [[at]] *
Unsubscribe:      ebook-community-unsubscribe [[at]] *
Switch to digest: ebook-community-digest [[at]] *
Switch to normal: ebook-community-normal [[at]] *
Put mail on hold: ebook-community-nomail [[at]] *
Administrator:    ebook-community-owner [[at]] *

(* == yahoogroups.com)
-------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ebook-community/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ebook-community/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    ebook-community-fullfeatured-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    ebook-community-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/