Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 9th Jun 2011 18:51 UTC
Internet & Networking It's official now. The signs had been there for a while now. While the west bangs on about the importance of freedom and democracy, they don't actually want anyone to have too much of it. The US, France, and the UK have jointly pretty much declared war on freedom on the web.
Thread beginning with comment 476799
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
pantheraleo
Member since:
2007-03-07

Counterfeiting : Someone makes a factory next to yours that manufactures the same shirts for a lower price. You can still sell your shirts, but people won't buy them anymore because it's cheaper next door. Which one is closer to piracy ? Theft, according to you ?


For legal purposes, I don't think the words "theft" and the word "piracy" have much difference. Again, the original definition of the word "piracy" referred specifically to theft carried out on the seas. To the best of my knowledge, this is still the only legal definition of the word "piracy" that is codified in the United Stated Code. It took on a secondary meaning with changing technology and culture.

I would also point out, that neither 17 U.S.C or 18 U.S.C, which are the sections of the United States Code dealing with copyright law, and copyright infringement, ever use the word "piracy" when referring to this crime. But they do use the word "theft".

So from a legal standpoint, if, they were manufacturing the exact same shirts I was, I would call it IP theft, or creativity theft, which are both terms used by the DOJ and the FBI to describe this type of crime.

Edited 2011-06-10 15:57 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Alright, so what is stolen is not a product but an intellectual property. We're getting there.

The authority argument "the DOJ and FBI use this naming convention" won't work here, since what I'm trying to show there is precisely that naming IP infringement theft is a big semantic mistake.

Intellectual property gives you some exclusive rights over a number of products, as an example the right to produce the aforementioned shirts. Do you agree that since your intellectual property is what gives you legitimity when producing the shirts, if your IP was stolen from you in the correct sense of the word (the robber gets it, and you don't have it anymore), you would lose the right to produce your shirts, while the robber would win the right to produce them ?

Edited 2011-06-10 16:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

Alright, so what is stolen is not a product but an intellectual property. We're getting there.


What is stolen is something of value to me. Because you are depriving me of the ability to make money off of my own creations.

The authority argument "the DOJ and FBI use this naming convention" won't work here, since what I'm trying to show there is precisely that naming IP infringement theft is a big semantic mistake.


Ah. So now you are the expert on law and legal terminology? I'm sorry, but the DOJ disagrees with you. The FBI disagrees with you. Harvard Law School disagrees with you. The law dictionary disagrees with you. I really think that now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing because you don't want to admit that you were wrong about "theft" encompassing more than just the taking of a physical possession without consent.

Btw, what would you call illegally downloading copyrighted content then? Surely you would not call it "piracy", since the definition piracy is theft on the high seas. So if you call it piracy, you've not only engaged in another semantic error by your own logic. But you've also created a circular definition. So if it's not theft, and it's not piracy, what would you call it?

I'm really not going to continue this semantic argument with you. The law clearly states that copyright infringement is a form of theft. So quite frankly, you are the one that is semantically wrong here.

The legal definition of theft does NOT require that original physical property be taken. It really is that simple.

Edited 2011-06-10 17:14 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2