Question about piracy as theft

[LibForestPaul]

for all except WaltM
Infringement:
The encroachment, breach, or violation of a right, law, regulation, or contract.

The term is most frequently used in reference to the invasion of rights secured by Copyright, patent, or trademark. The unauthorized manufacture, sale, or distribution of an item protected by a copyright, patent, or trademark constitutes an infringement.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

infringement n. 2) in the law of patents (protected inventions), and copyrights (protected writings or graphics), the improper use of a patent, writing, graphic or trademark without permission, without notice, and especially without contracting for payment of a royalty. Even though the infringement may be accidental (an inventor thinks he is the first to develop the widget although someone else has a patent), the party infringing is responsible to pay the original patent or copyright owner substantial damages, which can be the normal royalty or as much as the infringers' accumulated gross profits. (See: patent infringement, patent, copyright, trademark, plagiarism, royalty)
Infringement
Theft is taking of property.
Infringement is the disregard for government granted monopolies. If a government, (i.e. China) does not grant patents or trademarks, no infringement can occur.
Theft exists without government, it is the breaking of a "self-evident" right of property .

 

[slothman]

"Copyright," or as I like to call it, "CP:copyprivledge," assumes that IP, or as I like to call it, "ISCP: intellectual so-called property," isn't real property.
As it can be copied indefinitely then in my mind it'sn't.
There might be services involved; it takes energy for them to allow you to download it.
Buying an e-book or iTunes isn't really buying as they aren't losing.

Personally I don't respect CP after 5 years.
If you couldn't make money then than perhaps you shouldn't be in the business.

As the Const. says, paraphrased, "To create science and arts," then any law which prevents that should be unconstitutional.
I.e. if someone was going to write a book or make a movie but can't because laws would make it hard on him then the laws are wrong, unconst.

 

[WaltM]

Taxation is theft.

Counterfeiting money is actually something worse than theft, and that requires an explanation.

Taxation isn't theft because it's not taken without your knowledge (and hardly without your consent).

Counterfeiting is worse than theft? Fair enough!

Counterfeiting money is very complex, and the wrongdoing is not only in the person that counterfeits the money, i.e., prints the money. The damage is also done by forcing people to use one particular money by legal tender laws. That particular form of coercion is not literally theft, but it's of course still wrong, and it's what allows the counterfeiter to do his mischief.

In a technical sense, counterfeiting money is not theft, but it's a good word to describe it informally, because it's very close to it.

Sounds awfully like the argument against unauthorized copying!

Counterfeiting is in fact worse. It's denying people the ability to own worthwhile money. In that situation, your good money is not stolen because you're deprived from the possibility of owning good money, which is worse than theft. Something that you never owned can't be stolen from you.

So you agree that "making more" isn't necessarily a good?

 

[WaltM]

"Copyright," or as I like to call it, "CP:copyprivledge," assumes that IP, or as I like to call it, "ISCP: intellectual so-called property," isn't real property.
As it can be copied indefinitely then in my mind it'sn't.
There might be services involved; it takes energy for them to allow you to download it.
Buying an e-book or iTunes isn't really buying as they aren't losing.

Personally I don't respect CP after 5 years.
If you couldn't make money then than perhaps you shouldn't be in the business.

As the Const. says, paraphrased, "To create science and arts," then any law which prevents that should be unconstitutional.
I.e. if someone was going to write a book or make a movie but can't because laws would make it hard on him then the laws are wrong, unconst.

fair enough, at least you respect it for a short while.

copyright and patents have expiration dates too, just not as short as 5 years.

 

[WaltM]

for all except WaltM
Infringement:
The encroachment, breach, or violation of a right, law, regulation, or contract.

So theft and murder would both fall under this definition?

The term is most frequently used in reference to the invasion of rights secured by Copyright, patent, or trademark. The unauthorized manufacture, sale, or distribution of an item protected by a copyright, patent, or trademark constitutes an infringement.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

infringement n. 2) in the law of patents (protected inventions), and copyrights (protected writings or graphics), the improper use of a patent, writing, graphic or trademark without permission, without notice, and especially without contracting for payment of a royalty. Even though the infringement may be accidental (an inventor thinks he is the first to develop the widget although someone else has a patent), the party infringing is responsible to pay the original patent or copyright owner substantial damages, which can be the normal royalty or as much as the infringers' accumulated gross profits. (See: patent infringement, patent, copyright, trademark, plagiarism, royalty)

Infringement
Theft is taking of property.
Infringement is the disregard for government granted monopolies. If a government, (i.e. China) does not grant patents or trademarks, no infringement can occur.
Theft exists without government, it is the breaking of a "self-evident" right of property .

wrong, theft doesn't exist without recognition and respect for property.
If I don't recognize your ownership of your car, you can't say I stole it from you (you can only do so if you assume I respected your property, and good luck enforcing it).

why doesn't a person have a self evidence right to intellectual property?

 

[cindy25]

what about selling a used book? this is not allowed in the UK

or refilling an ink cartridge, which is banned in Japan?

 

[low preference guy]

So you agree that "making more" isn't necessarily a good?

The point I wanted to make is that piracy is not theft. Not that copying is always good; sometimes it's bad, for example when it breaks a contract

In the case of counterfeiting, the making of copies itself isn't wrong. Suppose you make false gold certificates at your house. Nobody gets hurt if they stay at your house and you never use them. The crime is when you give it to a store clerk making them believe that is a real certificate. But that is fraud, not theft. It is wrong, but not everything that is wrong is theft. In this case, the wrong action is fraud.

Taxation is of course theft. It's taking someone's property by force, so it is theft. Whether or not you know it is irrelevant. If you know the thief who entered your house, he is still a thief! I'm shocked that someone could make such a nonsensical argument.

As for saying taxation is done with consent, well, I guess when someone points a gun to my head and asks me for my money and I give it to him, it's also done with consent.

Ron Paul himself believes taxation is theft. Go to 2:03.

YouTube - Ron Paul's Tea Party Speech

 

[WaltM]

what about selling a used book? this is not allowed in the UK

In the US, used and pre-owned media is protected under "first sale rule", in Europe, it's called "exhaustion rule".

There are exceptions, which software companies use, called "licensing agreement" where the user never "bought" the software, not even the copy of it, but is only licensed for his one time use.

See Vernor vs Autodesk.

or refilling an ink cartridge, which is banned in Japan?

what?? that's weird!

 

[WaltM]

The point I wanted to make is that piracy is not theft. Not that copying is always good; sometimes it's bad, for example when it breaks a contract

ok.

In the case of counterfeiting, the making of copies itself isn't wrong. Suppose you make false gold certificates at your house. Nobody gets hurt if they stay at your house and you never use them.

Tell that to inflation alarmists, who think the mere printing of money will destroy our economy (whereas you are right, it has to be actually put on the market and accepted for use).

The crime is when you give it to a store clerk making them believe that is a real certificate. But that is fraud, not theft. It is wrong, but not everything that is wrong is theft. In this case, the wrong action is fraud.

Do I actually have to tell him "this is real"? Doesn't he have the responsibilty to check whether it's real? What if I didn't know myself if it's real?

Taxation is of course theft. It's taking someone's property by force, so it is theft.

Theft is taking without permission and knowledge, taking by force is called ROBBERY.

Why is counterfeiting (creating supply of money, devaluing it for owners) not theft? Whereas taxation (decreasing a holder's money, by taking it directly) theft?

Whether or not you know it is irrelevant. If you know the thief who entered your house, he is still a thief! I'm shocked that someone could make such a nonsensical argument.

I'm talking about whether you knew of the incident and permitted it, not whether you know the person (or rapist, or murderer).

As for saying taxation is done with consent, well, I guess when someone points a gun to my head and asks me for my money and I give it to him, it's also done with consent.

Yes, it is.

Ron Paul himself believes taxation is theft. Go to 2:03.

YouTube - Ron Paul's Tea Party Speech

Does Ron Paul believe in copyright?

 

[low preference guy]

Does Ron Paul believe in copyright?

Not sure. If he didn't, he probably wouldn't pick an unwinnable battle. But all his intellectual influences, Hayek, Rothbard, Rockwell and people at the Mises Institute, either questioned Copyright or are completely against it.

 

[low preference guy]

As for saying taxation is done with consent, well, I guess when someone points a gun to my head and asks me for my money and I give it to him, it's also done with consent.

Yes, it is.

Your definition of "consent" is not what people generally use. In my book, giving something under thread of death is not giving with consent.

 

[WaltM]

Your definition of "consent" is not what people generally use. In my book, giving something under thread of death is not giving with consent.

what I meant by taxation is consent based is, it's not secret, you have the option of not working and making no income, upon making income, and agreeing to your salary and wages, you've taken the offer to work for $10/hr, minus taxes, plus some tips.

are you one of those people who don't tip at restaurants because its voluntary?

 

[low preference guy]

what I meant by taxation is consent based is, it's not secret, you have the option of not working and making no income, upon making income, and agreeing to your salary and wages, you've taken the offer to work for $10/hr, minus taxes, plus some tips.

are you one of those people who don't tip at restaurants because its voluntary?

I tip at restaurants. This is both a non-sequitur and a ad-hominen attack. Few people can pull that off. As for your argument, I am not going to keep talking to a lazy person who instead of thinking prefers to resort to name calling.

 

[low preference guy]

what I meant by taxation is consent based is, it's not secret, you have the option of not working and making no income, upon making income, and agreeing to your salary and wages, you've taken the offer to work for $10/hr, minus taxes, plus some tips.

are you one of those people who don't tip at restaurants because its voluntary?

I tip at restaurants. This is both a non-sequitur and a ad-hominen attack. Few people can pull that off. As for your argument, I am not going to keep talking to a lazy person who instead of thinking prefers resorting to personal attacks.

 

[Matt Collins]

what about selling a used book? this is not allowed in the UK

or refilling an ink cartridge, which is banned in Japan?

Look up "First Sale Doctrine".

 

[Matt Collins]

copyright and patents have expiration dates too, just not as short as 5 years.

Actually current day "copyprivilege" is de facto infinity -1. Every time Mickey Mouse gets close to public domain Disney lobbies Congress to further extend "copyprivilege" .

 

[Matt Collins]

very cute, so you're not against counterfeiting currency or ID theft, right?

No such thing as "ID theft". There is however ID fraud, but fraud and theft are not one in the same. Don't buy into the marketing cool aid

 

[Matt Collins]

Can I shoplift without the intent to deprive them of it?

No you cannot

How is that not owning it for all intents and purposes?

How would it be different than saying "You don't own your house, just the exclusive legal privilege to live in it, control it, and guard it"?

Well look up allodial title and you'll realize that we do not own our homes or our land. And since we can't have control over our own bodies we don't own our bodies either. We don't own anything come to think of it. Actually if we don't own anything we dont have any rights.

 

[Matt Collins]

Or, they can accuse the infringer of not buying the original copy, making them prove that they copied it legally.

No. All infringement is done at the point of copying. That's why it's not unlawful to download "copyprivileged" material. It is however unlawful to upload it.

 

[jsu718]

No. All infringement is done at the point of copying. That's why it's not unlawful to download "copyprivileged" material. It is however unlawful to upload it.

Well constitutionally by the US Code, sure it is legal to download... but the judges have another idea. They say now that since a term of use is available somewhere at some time then you should have known better (and are bound by a contract that you neither read nor signed) and can be held liable for copyright infringement just for downloading even a fraction of a file. Although I would go further and dispute the original argument since fair use covers the original copying as long as you own the copy and the upload only is the point of violation.