Re: Net piracy?

[jeffr@bmerha2a.bnr.ca (Jeffrey Robertson)]

In article <bazyarCt0wts.2Iz@netcom.com>,
Jawaid Bazyar <bazyar@netcom.com> wrote:
>dkl@crl.com (David K. Leikam) writes:
>
[mega-snip]
>
>>  Now, if I cannot anywhere legitimately purchase something, and the 
>>putative owner cannot be found by a diligent search, or clearly indicates 
>>indifference toward selling same, wherein is "theft"? 
>
>  Let's say there are four wondrous opals (of a family) in the world.
>None of the owners care to sell it to you. Does that mean you can
>steal it?

Oh, come on Jawaid.  If you read the original statement, you see that
this example does not apply.  He posits that you can't buy the thing,
nor can you find the owner.  Well, if you can steal the thing, you
must have found the owner.  You yourself say the owners have said they
don't want to sell it, so that also suggests you know where the owners
are, and that they have no "clearly indicated indifference".  So the
example doesn't apply.

I think all physical analogies to intellectual property are doomed
to failure, but I think my "art miser" analogy a few posts back
represents the situation a lot better than this one.

>
>>  BTW, "theft" is a legal term, precisely defined, and includes the 
>>provisio that the thing "stolen" has value. See the first paragraph. A 
>>thing with zero value cannot be taken by "theft". See the first paragraph.
>
>  Ah. But that computer program has value to you, because you are
>bothering to copy it, and rationalize its theft.

Quite so.  May I point out that all _my_ arguments do not make reference
to the value of the software, but hinge on the responsibility of the
copyright holder to defend the copyright.  But just to muddy the waters
a little, the last time I took software border, the customs guy said I
didn't have to pay duty on the price of the software, but only on the
value of the physical components.  (disks and manuals)  He said that
for customs purposes, software has no intrinsic value.  (This was a 
few years ago, and has probably changed.  But it's still interesting.)

>
>  Secondly, the value of a thing is determined not unilaterally by
>you, but by you and the owner of that thing.

[snip]

>  Civil justice is the objective use of retributive force. It is
>only properly performed by the Government.  Individuals who seek
>"justice" on their own or make their own laws regardless of
>those enforced by the government are criminals.

Well, there's probably some anarchists and Libertarians who'd disagree
with this attitude towards big brother (oops, I mean our wonderful
duely elected leaders), but let's not start _that_ thread here too :-)

Cheers,
-- 
-------------------------------------+----------------+-----------------
Jeffrey Robertson                    |  jeffr@bnr.ca  |      BNR, Ottawa
"I speak for myself, not BNR" - Me   +----------------+       (Meriline)
"Verbing weirds language" - Calvin                      OC-48 FiberWorld