Poo

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

What do you mean, "now"? I've been disagreeing with the definition of IP "theft" as theft thoughout my involvement in the thread.

really?

because when i take the time and trouble to post a reply explaining how it is theft to you and you don't reply i take your failure to reply as an agreement with my argument.

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

really?

because when i take the time and trouble to post a reply explaining how it is theft to you and you don't reply i take your failure to reply as an agreement with my argument.

Next time take it as merely a failure to reply

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Summanus

Next time take it as merely a failure to reply

Heh, yes. From various experiences on Usenet, mailing lists and webforums a failure to reply almost never means agreement.

[sayonara]

Originally Posted by Summanus

Next time take it as merely a failure to reply

I wouldn't even take it as failure (well, within a reasonable time frame), seeing as a forum represents an asynchronous communications method.

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by sayonara

I wouldn't even take it as failure (well, within a reasonable time frame), seeing as a forum represents an asynchronous communications method.

Failure is the word Yahwe used, I'd say it's just 'the user not having replied'. They may or may not at another time

[meglamaniac]

Dante, you seem to be under the impression that I'm arguing 'for' that model.
I'm not, I'm just illustrating the status quo - that doesn't mean I agree with it.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

More importantly, why wouldn't they? I don't really understand the argument the pro-IP* people are using here.

If you're saying intellectual property is somewhat similar to physical property then why would it expire?.

Intellectual property is a horrible term and should be avoided (even that loon RMS agrees on this as far as I know). There are good reasons why copyright should be lifelong, and good reasons why patents shouldnt be - treating them under the one label is going to lead to confusion.

To be honest, I think that using term 'property' at all is confusing. It doesnt make sense to talk about 'owning' ideas. But this a merely linguistic point and isnt central to the debate, since all arguements can be rephrased to eliminate it (A copyright does not grant 'ownership of the copyrighted idea' outside the minds of people who want to pretend we are discussing the ownership of ideas in order to make the pro-copyright side appear insane).

edit: I was thinking of copyrights when I wrote this. I accept that patents do, in a sense, involve the ownership of ideas. But then I think the issue of patents is a lot trickier than that of copyright.

[MrL_JaKiri]

To be perfectly honest, I didn't reply to this post because I decided that it would be an absolute waste of anybody's theoretical time, but I will anyway because you so demand it.

Originally Posted by Yahwe

this is a remarkably childish way of looking at property, loss is not a necessary part of a property transaction merely because it is frequently present.

Please give a (non-IP related) example where it isn't.

Originally Posted by Yahwe

chose in actions such as train journeys or cab rides in a horse and trap have been recognised for quite some time, so to say that loss is a part of all property transactions is just silly.

How is that a "property transaction"? That, if anything, is a service. I don't own the cab which takes me to my destination. I own no part of the train. Explain exactly how property changes hands.

Originally Posted by Yahwe

i'm sorry that you don't like the fact that there are limited methods of transfering property but if you were to think about it you would understand that it's essential.

In the post you were replying to, I commented that you appeared to believe this is axiomic; using your argument from the top of the page, as you did not reply to that statement, you must agree with it.

I do not believe it is axiomic, and therefore your argument becomes one of faith, rather than of evidence, and thus, in my opinion, may be discarded out of hand.

Originally Posted by Yahwe

IP is nothing conceptually new just because it is a hypothetical piece of property, it is no different from a chose in action and it has presented no such difficulty as you envisage.

Even with presuming a typo, this still makes absolutely no sense, especially given that it fails to suggest a fundamental link between property and IP, so I can't even attempt to infer what you meant from reference to what it was replying to.

Originally Posted by Yahwe

I can but think you fail to address this point because you are unable to find true fault.

You know, this reminds me of arguing with advocators of Intelligent Design.

[sayonara]

Originally Posted by Summanus

Failure is the word Yahwe used, I'd say it's just 'the user not having replied'. They may or may not at another time

That was the point I was making. I was not disagreeing with you, but with Yahwe's choice of words. Imagine that post prefaced with "Moreover ".

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Please give a (non-IP related) example where it isn't.

Someone steals your car when you are on holiday and returns it before you get back. "Loss" is not intrinsic to property - property concerns the sole right of use. Someone using your property without your permission constitutes a violation of rights, regardless of whether there is actual loss.

Does it really matter whether copyright infringement is called theft? It's a purely semantic issue which has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of it.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Someone steals your car when you are on holiday and returns it before you get back.

Loss does occur though; you may not have experienced it, but it still takes place. That's what makes it "theft".

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Loss does occur though; you may not have experienced it, but its theft because it was taken away without your permission.

This is a queer use of 'loss'.

Someone uses my computer without my permission. Where is the loss?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

This is a queer use of 'loss'.

It's not net loss, I never suggested that it was.

But for the time that the car was taken, you have lost the possibility of its use. You weren't going to have used it, but that's beside the point.

Someone uses my computer without my permission. Where is the loss?

Noone's suggesting that's theft, though.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Someone steals your car when you are on holiday and returns it before you get back. "Loss" is not intrinsic to property - property concerns the sole right of use. Someone using your property without your permission constitutes a violation of rights, regardless of whether there is actual loss.

But your example isn't "theft". In fact, if I remember correctly, they had to invent a new crime of "driving without the owner's consent" purely so that they could prosecute joy-riders who returned the cars after use, as "theft" legally has to involve an intent to deprive someone of something permanently.

Edit: I was right. Wikipedia says "in the common law, theft is usually defined as the unauthorised taking or use of someone else's property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use."

[MrL_JaKiri]

Well there we go then.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

INoone's suggesting that's theft, though.

I'm not interested in whether its 'theft' since this is merely semantics, but I thought you were making a general point about property and loss?

If you're happy to say that property right violations need not involve theft, then thats fine.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I'm not interested in whether its 'theft' since this is merely semantics, but I thought you were making a general point about property and loss?

If you're happy to say that property right violations need not involve theft, then thats fine.

It wasn't property rights violations per se, but occasions in which people gain (theoretically permanently) physical property.

[sayonara]

Right, this isn't going anywhere. Let's approach from another angle.

If downloading a duplicate of a file is deprivation or infringement of property rights, why is it so much more difficult for even the RIAA and MPAA to satisfactorially win cases (by judgement, not by settlement) against file downloaders than it is for them to win cases against file uploaders (who actually are contravening copyright law)?