Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : niklasb
Date : Thu Sep 22 2005 10:04 am

Chris Sonnack wrote:
> Arthur J. O'Dwyer writes:
> > Chris Sonnack wrote:
>
> >> It's such a simple equation.  Taking something of someone else's without
> >> their permission is theft.  Period.
[snip]
> > And remember, David is strenuously arguing against the recognition of
> > certain kinds of concepts (words, art, algorithms, democracy, the
> > color blue) as "property" at all --- which means that we disagree on
> > the  meaning of "something" as well!
> >    Not so simple, is it? :)
>
> I think the idea of theft is still simple.  The idea of rightful ownership
> may, indeed, be more complex, since it's based on social perception.
>
> But I think that for any given 'x' upon which we can agree ownership
> can be lawful, there is no question about the theft of it being wrong.

Yes, the idea of theft is simple once there is agreement on the
concept of property -- and on what kinds of things can be owned.
However, that is precisely where the disagreement lies.

For you, it seems to be an axiom that creative works are a form of
property (i.e. IP) and can therefore be owned. However, others start
with different axioms.

>
> And tell me, why do you believe I may not own the fruits of my labor?

It depends on whether the fruits of your labor are something which
can be owned. Obviously if you build something tangible like a chair
then you own it -- unless you're working for hire, in which case
your employer owns it.

At least some intangibles can also be owned. If you create a company,
then you own that company. The thing you own in this case is a
legal entity.

On the other hand, perhaps you labor for world peace. If against
all odds you were successfull, would you "own" the resulting peace?
More modestly, suppose you labor to bring about a reconcilation
between estranged spouses. Now if you're a professional counselor
they may pay you for your labors, but if so you're merely being
paid to provide a service. In no case do you "own" the fruit of
your labor -- i.e., the resulting reconciliation.

Clearly some intangibles can be owned while others cannot, and
the deciding factor is not whether the intangible resulted from
someone's labor.

Now suppose you write a novel. It seems to me important to
distinguish between two things: the novel itself and a corresponding
legal entity which is the copyright on that novel. What you own as
the author is the copyright. To see that these are different things,
consider that the novel may be copied any number of times but there
is still only one copyright and one copyright owner. Consider also
that the novel may in theory live forever but the copyright
eventually expires. This would be very irregular if you actually
owned the novel itself because ordinary property rights do not
expire in this way, but there is nothing odd about a legal entity
like a copyright having a finite lifetime.

Copyright does not follow automatically from the notion that you
own the product of your work. The product of an author's work is an
intangible of a sort which (like world peace) cannot itself be owned.
Copyright exists as a matter of law because it serves a social good
by allowing creators to profit from their efforts.

None of this is to say that copyright (or patent) infringement is OK.
It is both legally and morally wrong, and those who argue otherwise
are often just rationalizing their own self-serving behavior. However,
it is not the same thing as theft. I would say it is more akin to
trespassing. The trespasser improperly uses someone's land without
permission, and the infringer improperly uses someone's copyright
without permission.

.