11 Feb
2013
11 Feb
'13
3:42 p.m.
On Sunday 10 February 2013 11:10:17 Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:51:07AM -0500, drew Roberts
wrote:
The thing is, the changes that I have seen in my lifetime have only served to
make the situation worse. And I don't see much force being applied to make
the situatin better.
That does not stop me from stating what a horrid
law I think it
is though nor from saying that violating that law and making
unauthorised copies is not stealing even if it is illegal.
You have all the right to that opinion, and to advocate changes
to copyright law (which indeed has some murky aspects which I'd
want to see changed).
OTOH, saying that something isn't stealing just amounts to
trying to redefine the meaning of that word so it's more or
pointless.
No, those who call copyright violations stealing are trying to redefine the
word.
If someone approaches you in the street and bashes your face in with a bat,
permanently disfiguring you, he does not get charged before the courts
for "stealing" your good looks. There is another crime he is charged with.
If making unauthorized copies was clearly theft, we would not need copyright
law in the first place. People making such copies would be simply charged
with stealing just like those who pickpocket you would be.
When I say this, I am not trying to say it is right or wrong, that is a
different argument. I am saying it is not theft. Just as I would say it is
not assault and battery if someone called it that. Nor is it murder should
someone call it that. It is violating copyright, not those other things.
First, let's call it what it is. Then let's discuss if it is morally right or
wrong.
And stating that an author who publishes his work
voluntarily gives up any ability to control it is little more
than whishfull thinking - just ask the author, who probably
knows his/her own intentions better that you do.
So you tell a joke at work. Do you really think you have some inherent power
to stop that joke from being retold?
Ciao,