Re: Napster destroys Western Civilization

On Fri, 19 May 2000, Michael J. O'Connor <mjoconor[_at_]erols.com> wrote:
>
> 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?

This is an excellent point, Michael. Having stated it, I'm sure someone will now feel the need to educate you on the difference between a "copy", which is a physical thing, and "service", which is not. Hang on! LOL

Best regards,
Marty

Marty Hayes
<9ball[_at_]hostsite.net> Received on Mon May 22 2000 - 15:50:23 GMT