Re: Napster destroys Western Civilization

On Wed, 17 May 2000, Dodi Schultz <schultz[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> In my view, "misappropriate" is a euphemism for "steal." I don't
> see how you can assert that copyright "does not leave the possession
> of the owner" when one or more of the elements constituting copyright
> has been whipped out of the owner's possession.

It hasn't. I think the point that you're missing is that copyright does not have associated with it a possessory interest. It's a bundle of exclusive rights to do or authorize a number of acts.

Because it carries with it no possessory interest, it is not subject to theft, which requires a deprivation of that possessory interest.

> If I have a freshly baked pie sitting on my kitchen table and someone
> slips in, slices it down the middle, and absconds with half, would
> you say that the pie has not left the possession of its owner?

No, I would not.

> If someone lifts five chapters of the total of 14 in my book and
> publishes them without my permission, surely that person is without
> question denying me the exercise of my own rights.

If by "lifts" you mean "copy," sure.

> I have been deprived of a possession I had -- namely, the right to
> control the publication and distribution of my own intellectual
> property.

That's not a possession.

If you want a comparable example using a possessory interest, imagine that you own a copy of a book -- whether you wrote it or whether you bought a published book at the local bookstore -- and someone comes and physically cuts out five chapters out of the total of 14 and takes them from you. You had a possessory interest in the physical object you own, the book, and it's been compromised by the removal of a portion of the physical object. That can be theft.

-- 
Terry Carroll         |   "The United States is located in
Santa Clara, CA       |   the District of Columbia."
carroll[_at_]tjc.com       |
Modell delendus est   |       Uniform Commercial Code s. 9-307(h)