Re: Napster destroys Western Civilization

On Tue, 16 May 2000, Timothy Arnold-Moore <tja[_at_]io.mds.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
>
> 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?
>
> "Taking" carries with it the implication that the object is removed from
> the possession of one person to that of another.

I would suggest that "taking" is denying another person of something. That "taking" can be a removal or property; it could also be "taking" by virtue of failure to recognize a legal right.

> While a copyright infringer misappropriates one or more of the rights
> of the owner, with the possible exception of first publication, an
> infringer could hardly be said to be denying the owner from exercising
> their rights

How do you figure? It doesn't appear you live in the U.S. from your e-mail address, so let me elaborate. Under U.S. copyright law, "the owner of copyright ... has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to

    the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental,     lease, or lending

By the above, if you make a copy (outside of the fair use application) without the creator's permission, you have just essentially negated the effect of one of the creator's exclusive rights that copyright law was designed to protect. Does the creator still possess the legal protection of the right? Sure, but what good is that if no one will honor it?

> copyright does not leave the possession of the owner.

So? The creator still hold the "copyright", but that copyright is a set of exclusive rights that are essentially worthless if others don't honor them.

Not incidentally, you also deprive the potential for revenue to the copyright holder when you make a copy without permission/royalties. There are different schools of thought as to whether or not copyright law (in its origins) had any revenue/economic considerations in its inception, and that's a whole other discussion (which has been hashed to an exhaustive level). The fact that the remedies for infringement include monetary damages award to the copyright holder suggest that economics does play at least some part in present-day thinking correlating to copyright.

Regards,
Marty

Marty Hayes
<9ball[_at_]hostsite.net> Received on Wed May 17 2000 - 19:10:20 GMT