Re: Napster destroys Western Civilization

From: Michael J. O'Connor <mjoconor[_at_]erols.com>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 08:29:58 -0400

On Thu, 18 May 2000, Dodi Schultz <schultz[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> I suggested that taking something from me without my permission, even
> if the thing taken is not tangible (like a book or a CD) but something
> intangible (like my copyright or my reputation) is -- in a moral/ethical
> sense, even if not in legal terminology -- theft.
>
> On Wed, 17 May 2000, Jeremy Byrne <jeremy[_at_]iz.org>, in reply to
> that, wrote:
> >
> > If we both profit from our barter, is that theft? If I learn from
> > your wisdom, is that theft? If I find pleasure in your company,
> > are you poorer for it? Clearly, we can take something of value
> > from someone else and have it be in no sense theft.
>
> Sure, we can, if an exchange takes place by mutual agreement. But
> if you help yourself to my car, my cash, or my copyright without my
> permission, that's not "barter." That's *stealing.*

and then again:

On Thu, 18 May 2000, Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 May 2000, Dodi Schultz <schultz[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.

This thread has gotten quite metaphysical, but I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned the crime (in New York, at least) of theft of service. If I were to tap into my local cable company's lines to get cable tv service without paying for it, or telephone service, I would be guilty of this crime. I wonder how this consideration would have affected (if at all) the Australian libel/(slander?) case someone mentioned last week?

Michael J. O'Connor
<mjoconor[_at_]erols.com> Received on Fri May 19 2000 - 12:30:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:39 GMT