Re: Napster destroys Western Civilization

On Sat, 13 May 2000, Dodi Schultz <schultz[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 May 2000, Lynn Winebarger <owinebar[_at_]free-expression.org> wrote:
> >
> > Copyright infringement is _not_ morally equivalent to theft.
>
> Yeah, it is. How else do you describe taking something that is legally
> the property of someone else?

If I had a dollar for every time the theft issue has come up on this listserv in the last two years, I wouldn't have to work for a living. This is not a legal or philosophical problem, it's a linguistic one. Numerous posters have pointed out the key difference that theft deprives the owner of the object itself, while infringement usurps one or more exclusive rights of the owner without depriving him of the object itself. Both are unlawful takings, and both may subject the perp to civil liability or criminal penalty. Infringement may be morally equivalent to theft, but it is not the same thing. That's why we have the two different words (and concepts) "theft" and "infringement."

> Robert C. Cumbow
> Graham & Dunn, P.C.
> 1420 Fifth Avenue, 33rd Floor
> Seattle, Washington 98101-2390
> Phone: 206-340-9619
> Fax: 206-340-9599
> E-mail: rcumbow[_at_]grahamdunn.com
> Website: http://www.grahamdunn.com/
>

		Big law firm experience
	without the big law firm experience.SM

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This email message may be protected by the attorney/client privilege, work product doctrine or other confidentiality protection. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error. Then delete it. Thank you. Received on Mon May 15 2000 - 16:26:12 GMT