[Gllug] Uh oh, ministers consider "anti file-sharing laws"

[Bruce Richardson]

On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 12:16:11PM +0100, t.clarke wrote:
> I suppose of one wishes to extend the argument about 'deprivation of objects'
> being theft,  one could argue that by copying something without agreement of
> the copyright holder you are *creating* a new object which is then technically
> the property of the copyright holder.  Since the copy was made without agreement
> you are then depriving the copyright holder of the use of that copy !

You could argue that, but legally you would be wrong.  You are not
suggesting something that lawyers and legislators have simply
overlooked; jurists will not be slapping their foreheads and yelling "Of
course, how could we have missed that!" after reading your e-mail.  To
illustrate: I can copy a book by reading it and typing the words afresh
onto new sheets of paper.  Those sheets of paper do not become the
property of the publisher once I do this and I do not suddenly become
guilty of stealing their paper.  If, on the other hand, I try to sell
or distribute my copy, I am infringing their exclusive right to express
their idea.  This is quite a different concept from that of theft.

I'm not trying to be awkward; this debate has been harmed by people a)
being imprecise and b) making strident moral judgements at the same
time.  More clarity is required.

-- 
Bruce

What would Edward Woodward do?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/gllug/attachments/20071025/bbf4c383/attachment.pgp>
-------------- next part --------------
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug