Re: "C Unleashed" OCR PDF on RapidShare, MegaUpload, P2P, etc.

[Joachim Schmitz]

The difference is with the library book, you have no power to
redistribute copies to others (you *could* , but you might as well buy
the book itself), but in the case of an electronic book, you can
potentially distribute it to innumerable other people.

And that is exactly why download itself is legal (at least where I live) but
making it available for others to download is a copyright violation and as
such illegal.

Bye, Jojo

 

[Keith Thompson]

Joachim Schmitz wrote: [...]
No, the difference is that the library book was bought with your
taxes, and the library has the legal right to lend it to people. You
too have that right with a book you buy.

And neither you nor the library has the legal right to make copies of
the book, either to sell or to give away. (As far as I know, in most
circumstances and jurisdictions, IANAL.)

 

[Guest]

The other point is that the library will have bought the book, and used
your tax to do it. So you've legally paid for the right to share a copy
with the other library users.

I believe libraries in some countries pay something based
how often it is borrowed

 

[Mark Wooding]

Anyone who really lived by creating anything would know that
is nothing but the excuse of a thief: "I have a right to steal what you have
created, and don't call my theft what it is."

Don't be silly. Stealing involves taking something such that the
original owner doesn't have it any more. The concept simply doesn't
apply to digital works. You're thinking of `copyright infringement',
which is an entirely different beast.

People usually describe copyright (or patent) infringement as `theft' or
`stealing' as part of an emotional argument intended to sway the woolly-
thinking.

-- [mdw], programmer and musician

 

[Martin Ambuhl]

Don't be silly. Stealing involves taking something such that the
original owner doesn't have it any more. The concept simply doesn't
apply to digital works. You're thinking of `copyright infringement',
which is an entirely different beast.

The above represents a complete misunderstanding of property rights.
A violation of property rights is theft.
Property rights revolve around four elements, not all of which are
necessarily present at any stage of history:
1) The right to use
2) The right to exclude others from use
3) The right to alienate
4) The extent to which the first three indefeasible

Feudal societies, which certainly have the concept of theft, often
assign (1) and (2) to a person (and possibly to heirs) without granting
(3) and with the rights granted not at all indefeasible.

Mercantile societies are characterized by (1), (2), and (3), but with
those rights again subject to annulment. The primary form of commercial
property in those society is not a "thing" but rights to monopoly or
monopsony. Violation of those rights is theft as surely as carting off
a "thing", and such violations were the cause of much bloodshed.

In modern capitalist societies, rights (1)-(3) become much closer to
indefeasible. While the state can through mechanisms such as imminent
domain defeat those rights, they are held much more securely than in
earlier stages.

Any child who has taken a course in U.S. history should understand this
because of his study of U.S. Supreme Court cases. Cases such as
_Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge_, _Gibbons v. Ogden_, and even
_Marbury v. Madison_, all of which any U.S. schoolchild would know, are
concerned with violation of an aspect of property rights, and not with
physical "things".

Theft is nothing more than a violation of agreed rights in property.
Intellectual property law in particular is concerned with rights rather
than "things".

No, I am not at being, as you say, "silly". But you are being ignorant.

People usually describe copyright (or patent) infringement as `theft' or
`stealing' as part of an emotional argument intended to sway the woolly-
thinking.

No, copyright and patent infringement are the stealing of someone's
right. That right is property as surely as a piece of land. Your
misunderstanding of property has become a misunderstanding of theft.

 

[vippstar]

You can copy up to a chapter of a book for personal use. Also you can make
"fair use" of material for the purpose of comment and criticism, which is
purposefully left rather vague. The principle breaks down rather with
computer code, because a subroutine might be rather short but non-trivial
and valuable in its own right, separate from the rest of the book.

I don't see how the principle breaks down with computer code any more
than it breaks down with other content. I don't think I've ever found
a book where importance was equally distributed...

 

[Richard Tobin]

The above represents a complete misunderstanding of property rights.
A violation of property rights is theft.

Not in English law.

"A person is guilty of theft if: he dishonestly appropriates
property belonging to another with the intention of permanently
depriving the other of it."

(http://www.sussex.police.uk/infocentre/text_version/content.asp?uid=449)

-- Richard

 

[vippstar]

(Of course he stupidly  snipped away the context)

Anyone who really lived by creating anything would know that
 > "downloading is stealing" copyright boogie man nonsense.
is nothing but the excuse of a thief:  "I have a right to steal what you
have created, and don't call my theft what it is."

An electronic version of something (a song, a book, a movie) is
nothing more than a number. Numbers are infinite. A single number can
be interpreted in infinite ways. You want me to not have the number
because a single interprentation of it was your work. Then you dare to
call me a thief for your own inability to realize this? If you're
already aware, then what is your excuse?

 

[vippstar]

I don't see how the principle breaks down with computer code any more
than it breaks down with other content. I don't think I've ever found
a book where importance was equally distributed...

I realized that in context this might be insulting, since C Unleashed
was written each chapter by different author. This was not
intentional. I just didn't see 'computer code' as a special case, like
Malcolm McLean did.

 

[Martin Ambuhl]

Not in English law.

"A person is guilty of theft if: he dishonestly appropriates
property belonging to another with the intention of permanently
depriving the other of it."

Note that you cleverly avoided defining "property". A person's rights
in a thing are property.

 

[Richard Tobin]

Not in English law.

"A person is guilty of theft if: he dishonestly appropriates
property belonging to another with the intention of permanently
depriving the other of it."

[/QUOTE]

Note that you cleverly avoided defining "property".

I didn't avoid it, I just quoted a definition.

A person's rights in a thing are property.

Do you have a legal basis for your assertion?

The fact is that making a copy without permission doesn't permanently
deprive anyone of anything. They still have everything they had before.
You might not buy it from them, but you might not have done that anyway.
It no more deprives them of the right to sell it to you than someone
producing a competing product does.

Anyway, here's a simple test: can you give a single example of anyone
being prosecuted for theft as a result of copyright infringement?

-- Richard

 

[Kai-Uwe Bux]

Mark McIntyre wrote:
[snip]

I believe we can agree that you own the right to permit copies of your
work. Indeed you can sell that right, and selling is by definition the
transfer of ownership in exchange for something.

I hope we can therefore concur that the granting of a right to make a
copy is your property. Depriving you of those rights is depriving you of
your property, and clearly its being done on a permanent basis. QED.

[snip]

The flaw with the argument is that in the case of copyright infringement,
you are not "deprived" of any right. In fact, the right remains with you,
which is the reason that cease and desist letters have a legal basis. That
someone chooses to _violate_ one of your rights, does not take that right
away. It remains with you and will be recognized as your right by the
courts.

Sometimes, you can indeed be illegally stripped of a property right, e.g.,
you can be tricked into giving it away. However, those are more often cases
of fraud than cases of theft.


Best

Kai-Uwe Bux

 

[Mark Wooding]

The above represents a complete misunderstanding of property rights.
A violation of property rights is theft.

Would you like to provide some evidence for that very surprising claim?

Any child who has taken a course in U.S. history

I'm afraid I never formally studied U.S. history. A brief look at my
email address may indicate why.

should understand this because of his study of U.S. Supreme Court
cases. Cases such as _Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge_,

This appears to be a case involving an interaction between state
legislature and contract law. Besides, Warren Bridge won, despite the
claims of the plaintiffs that `all sense of security for the rights of
persons and property would be lost.'

_Gibbons v. Ogden_,

This one seems largely about whether an individual state's had
precedence over an act of Congress.

and even _Marbury v. Madison_,

And this one seems to be about judicial appointments.

all of which any U.S. schoolchild would know, are concerned with
violation of an aspect of property rights, and not with physical
"things".

I'm very confused. None of them seem to be about theft or stealing.
Indeed, none of them is a criminal case at all. If you'd like to
explain the relevance of these cases to the matter in hand, I'd be very
grateful.

Theft is nothing more than a violation of agreed rights in property.

Theft is the taking of property, without consent. Agreed?

In the case of a copyright work being copied and distributed without the
copyright holder's consent, the only article of `property' is the actual
copyright, which is clearly being /infringed/ (and there are civil
remedies, and even some special-case criminal offences nowadays), but
the copyright holder still /has/ the copyright -- otherwise suing for
infringement wouldn't work very well! -- so nothing's actually been
stolen.

No, I am not at being, as you say, "silly". But you are being
ignorant.

I don't believe so. I think you're failing to see some distinctions
which aren't actually particularly subtle.

No, copyright and patent infringement are the stealing of someone's
right. That right is property as surely as a piece of land. Your
misunderstanding of property has become a misunderstanding of theft.

Absolute codswallop.

The right isn't being stolen at all. It's still there. It's been
infringed, so the right's owner can ask for civil remedies at law. But
until quite recently, copyright infringement wasn't a criminal offence
(as it now can be in both our countries, I believe), and the offence is
not one of theft.

I don't even know how I'd go about actually stealing someone's
copyright. It's not necessarily even embodied in a document. Claiming
that one has a copyright properly owned by another opens one to a civil
slander of title case (e.g., SCO v. Novell).

-- [mdw]

 

[Mark Wooding]

Do you have a legal basis for your assertion?

[...]

I hope we can therefore concur that the granting of a right to make a
copy is your property.

I don't see a mistake so far.

Depriving you of those rights is depriving you of your property, and
clearly its being done on a permanent basis. QED.

No. The copyright holder is not being /deprived/ of rights. Those
rights are being infringed, and he will usually therefore assert them.
Indeed, it's precisely because the copyright holder retains his rights
under this circumstance that he can sue for relief!

Red herring. Due to capitalism at work, penalties for infringement are
heavier than those for theft, and the rights owners don't gain benefit
from a criminal prosecution.

Here's one the other way: Dowling v. United States (1985):

: Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder
: have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of
: simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright
: does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer
: of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor
: wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more
: complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft,
: conversion, or fraud.

-- [mdw]

 

[Mark Wooding]

ACtually, it doesn't, not legally.

Theft Act 1968:

: A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property
: belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the
: other of it.

I don't see how one can reasonably be stated to have been deprived of
something one still has.

I dug up the California penal code, but that rather unhelpfully defines
theft partially in terms of stealing:

: 484. (a) Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry, lead,
: or drive away the personal property of another, or who shall
: fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or
: her, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent
: representation or pretense, defraud any other person of money, labor
: or real or personal property, or who causes or procures others to
: report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character and by
: thus imposing upon any person, obtains credit and thereby fraudulently
: gets or obtains possession of money, or property or obtains the labor
: or service of another, is guilty of theft.

But even so, this is all in terms of `property'. While copyrights and
similar are considered a form of property, they aren't actually being
taken, carried, led or driven away in any meaningful sense. And again,
see Dowling v. United States (1985).

And even if it did, taking a copy of someone's work would still count.

Perhaps you'd like to explain how. Citing some relevant law or cases
might help.

-- [mdw]

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Mark McIntyre wrote:
[snip]

I believe we can agree that you own the right to permit copies of your
work. Indeed you can sell that right, and selling is by definition the
transfer of ownership in exchange for something.

I hope we can therefore concur that the granting of a right to make a
copy is your property. Depriving you of those rights is depriving you of
your property, and clearly its being done on a permanent basis. QED.

Where is Keith (and others) pointing out that this is off-topic?

There is no mention of theft or rights or anything else from this thread
in any of the C standards documents.

Therefore, this thread should be killed.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

Any child who has taken a course in U.S. history should understand
this because of his study of U.S. Supreme Court cases. Cases such
as _Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge_, _Gibbons v. Ogden_,
and even _Marbury v. Madison_, all of which any U.S. schoolchild
would know, are concerned with violation of an aspect of property
rights, and not with physical "things".

I think you have an exagerated impression of US high school
education.

 

[santosh]

An electronic version of something (a song, a book, a movie) is
nothing more than a number. Numbers are infinite. A single number can
be interpreted in infinite ways. You want me to not have the number
because a single interprentation of it was your work. Then you dare to
call me a thief for your own inability to realize this? If you're
already aware, then what is your excuse?

Life is never as simple as this because the real reasons are politics,
about money and power. It's the control of *information* not how
it's represented (glyphs on paper, spots on magnetic surfaces, patterns
of holes on a giant cheese) that's the issue here.

When you make an electronic copy of a book and make it available at no
charge to millions of people, you can be viewed as causing financial
loss to the publishers. This is a *real* problem. Book publishers are
people who need to survive of their jobs, just like you and me.

Then of course, there's the issue of "intellectual property" and it's
violation, which is also involved, according to most laws, when a
unauthorised copy of a book is made, except for personal use. This is a
much more meta-physical concept and I'm not qualified to discuss this
further, except to note that the concept of treating ideas as property
somehow goes against my moral grain.

 

[Kaz Kylheku]

An electronic version of something (a song, a book, a movie) is
nothing more than a number.

Taking this reductionist bullshit further:

Your life is nothing more than some chemical reactions, putting a stop to which
carries no more moral significance than snuffing out a candle.

Thanks for playing intellectual.

 

[Martin Ambuhl]

I don't see how one can reasonably be stated to have been deprived of
something one still has.

A copyright grants property in the exclusive distribution of one's
product )or that of another when copyright has been assigned - that
ability to alienate being a sign that the copyright is property). A
copyright infringement in itself is an attempt to destroy that right.
It is aburd to argue that one still has what womeone else has taken
away. I have no idea what you think someone "still has" in a situation
where another's action destroys that very thing.

I dug up the California penal code, but that rather unhelpfully defines
theft partially in terms of stealing:

This and similar postings echo the same idea that several posters have
expressed in claiming that since CLC has no enforcer of standards
anything goes. It is a mindset that finds legalism and authority
necessary for one to behave. That legislators have chosen to classify
for purposes of criminal law certain behavior as "theft" in no way
defines that term. What it defines is the use of the word theft in
legal actions under the criminal law of that jurisdiction. The concept
of theft is independent of any such legalism. What kinds of theft are
considered actionable as criminal cases is a matter of public policy.
That many actions which are in reality theft are actionable at civil law
or even not at all in no way changes what theft, rather than things
which are called theft for the purposes of criminal law of some
jurisdiction, actually is.