Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : David Golden
Date : Fri Sep 23 2005 03:30 pm

Chris Sonnack wrote:
 
> Don't take my word for it, though.  Ask a lawyer.
> 

IANAL, but under the legal system of the country I live in
a person is 'guilty of theft if he or she dishonestly appropriates
property without the consent of its owner and with the intention of
depriving its owner of it'  (AFAIK the intent might still have to be to
permanently deprive in England and Wales)

Something has to BE property to be stolen, and even what constitutes
appropriation depends on what the proprietary rights in the property in
question are, and the intent to deprive has to exist for theft.

You can't just start out from the assumption it's valid to consider
information or copyright as property, call infringement of the 
proprietary rights theft, and then use the "theft is bad"
argument as any justification for the validity of the existence of the
property type in question.

There are typically civil torts (and sometimes even other crimes) for
various things some people speaking vague english instead of legalese
*might* call theft. In the USA, IIRC they originally came up with
"misappropriation" of trade secrets to avoid calling it theft yet allow
remedy, it's only pretty recently (1996 Economic Espionage Act) that
they really finally decided trade secrets are "property" and started
calling violations a federal crime of "theft" under US law.

But the USA situation is another _symptom_ of the very thing opposed by
so many of us: the very recent overuse of property concepts applied to
diverse things that aren't even remotely like physical property!  
AFAIK, certain forces in the USA openly state they want basically
everything to be "owned" as property, a truly horrific and brutal
doctrine.

In several other countries, confidentiality and trade secrets are
"equitable" rather than "property rights", basically stemming from
typical notions of "Steady on, fair play old chaps, eh?" of the
English.

Anyway, the law is still careful, for now: the "information" ISN'T
owned; "only" the copyright is (overextended copyright and
paracopyright (DMCA restrictions etc.) allows effective control of
information flow, though).

Even under a theory of labor->entitlement, you may have laboured to
create your copy of the information, but it does not make other copies
of that information yours, you may not even have labored to create
them. You certainly did NOT significantly labour for the copyright you
might be deprived of by copying (but the other person won't have
usurped your copyright; the copyright infringer can't steal a copyright
then use it to enrich himself, like stealing a car and driving it, and
usurpation is part of appropriation for ) - it's just awarded to you
statutorily as an incentive.

If it were even valid to consider information "itself" to be property
(and it's not really considered so even under current law):  The way to
deprive someone of information itself is by erasing or taking their
only copy (even then they're not permanently deprived of the
information itself, you'd also need to destroy their capacity to later
gain the information).  Something that would require interference or
theft of their physical property ANYWAY, because information never
exists independent of physical substrate. 

> No, I think we've cleared up the confusion between fair competition
> and stealing from the competition.  (I haven't seen any substantial
> rebuttals to it anyway.)

You just failed to understand them. While the playing field analogy is
extremely strained (most particularly because old zero-sum "game with
winners and losers" thinking is plain foolish), the costs of putting
together and training team and fielding it would be your startup
investment. 

Spending more on your team doesn't guarantee you a win
or even that there's anything to play for, or entitle you to prevent
later team owners who choose to field a team trying to learn and use
the  tactics and skills of your team by observation, nor imitating 
excretions of your team that you're swapping for the "prizes" you
desire.


The whole purpose of granting you temporary monopolies is
the theory that the UNfair competition will encourage you to field
a team making excretions that those trading the excretions for the
prizes you desire, desire.
















> 
> 
>>> Consider an explorer who's sacrificed good years with family, who's
>>> sacrificed some elements of health, who's invested considerable
>>> funds in exploring a heretofore unexplored part of the world.
>>>
>>> Our intrepid explorer now creates some lovely maps to sell to recoup
>>> some of the lost funds, repair health and "make it up" to the
>>> family.
>>>
>>> If you copy those maps--and since you have lost no family time, no
>>> health and very little funds--you can sell these maps at cut rate
>>> prices.
>>>
>>> Which **steals** the explorer's ability to recoup on the
>>> considerable investment and risk made to reach the goal.
>> 
>> You are using a circular argument. That the explorer loses his
>> ability to recoup on the considerabl investment and risk made to
>> reach the goal can be caused by a number of means that are considered
>> fair trade.
>> 
>> So this arguement doesn't imply that it is stealing. Stealing is
>> the idea you started from.
> 
> Nope, sorry, not so.  I started from the explorer and considered the
> consequences of the work being stolen.  And I did mean to illustrate
> what happens when it *was* stolen--the effect on the explorer was
> significant.
> 
> You seem to think that, because there are other ways in which the
> explorer could be SOL that they are all the same.  They are not.
> You cannot look at two end results and--because they are similar--
> claim the causes are similar.  That is logical foolishness.
> 
> In most cases, fair competition occurs on a level field.  For anyone
> else to achieve the same goal as our explorer, they probably need
> to expend much the same effort.  If they do that in a way that costs
> them much less than it did our explorer, our explorer is just SOL.
> 
>> This has been so with all the arguments I've seen here. People
>> argue that copying has a number of effect suggesting that such
>> effect imply stealing.
> 
> It's not about effects.  LOTS of things have similar end results.
> If you die of old age, that's too bad.  If you die because you
> were murdered, that's a serious crime.
> 
> It's serious logical fallacy to believe that similar end results
> imply similar causes.  Things get wet for LOTS of reasons.
> 
> 
>>>> No, information is not something that can be owned.
>>>
>>> Why not?  Says who?
>> 
>> Because it can't be taken from someone.
> 
> That seems an article of dogma to you.  I strongly suggest you sit
> down and think about it, because it's just plain wrong.  The fact
> that you take a *copy* does not in any logical way imply that you
> have NOT TAKEN something.
> 
> You have.
> 
>>> Thankfully, I'm one of the only owners of my ATM PIN number.
>>> If I couldn't own this piece of information, that would not
>>> be a Good Thing.
>> 
>> No, you don't own that information. You can try to hide it, but
>> if it were somehow in display you can't forbid people to look
>> at it.
> 
> Meaningless.  I own my car (would you agree)?  But I cannot forbid
> people to look at it.
> 
>> You can forbid people to use it to get money from your account,
>> but that doesn't mean you own the information.
> 
> No.  Actually I can't forbid that either.  Just like I cannot forbid
> people from taking my car.  What I can do--because I own that car
> and because I own my bank account AND THE MEANS TO ACCESS IT--is
> seek legal recourse.
> 
>>> If you narrowly define property as a physical thing, then the above
>>> is true.  However, I think we've evolved enough as humans to
>>> recognize that there are other forms of (non-physical) property.
>> 
>> And I think that it is wrong to call exclusive use rights of
>> information, property.
> 
> You have the right to think what you will, of course.
> 
>>> That definition is too narrow.  Sometimes when information is
>>> shared, something precious is lost.
>> 
>> But not property.
> 
> Is it just the term "property" that bothers you?  Fine, forget that.
> Do you disagree I have the right to determine how my work is used?
> 
> 
>>> All of which is a somewhat pointless side trip away from the simple
>>> fact that taking without permission is theft.
>> 
>> But this simple fact doesn't imply that information can be treated
>> as property and can be taken.
> 
> Fine, forget all the terminology.  My work, my sweat and blood.  Do I
> have the right to determine how it is used?
> 
> 
>>> It's really a very simple moral equation.  Do you want the right to
>>> define "property" that is legally obtained and rightfully yours?
>>> Then you must grant others that same right.
>>> 
>>> The moment you open the door to the idea that there are
>>> circumstances (in your opinion) that justify theft, you've opened
>>> the door for others to come up with their own reasons why they can
>>> steal from you.
>>>
>>> For example, if I seduce your wife--and you never know about
>>> it--will
>>> you readily agree I've taken nothing from you?  Your wife is still
>>> as she was (except for that little secret smile)--nothing *obvious*
>>> has been "taken" from you........ so, it's all okay?
>> 
>> You are mixing all kind of different things.
> 
> I don't think I am.  You have been drawing distinctions based on the
> tangibility of something that--at least in some sense--belongs to
> another
> person.  You've also drawn distinctions based on whether taking
> involves leaving a hole of some kind.
> 
> So I think the question is apt.
> 
>> You have legal and illegal actions, you have moral and immoral
>> actions and you have stealing and non-stealing.
>> 
>> Now about you seducing my wife. You didn't steal her and you
>> did nothing illegal, at least not where I live.
> 
> Understood and agreed.  However, the question I'm asking is whether
> you would feel I've acted in a bad way towards you.  Would you wish
> for revenge or legal recourse or some way to prevent me?
> 
>> Now if you want to argue that copying is immoral and should
>> be illegal that it is one thing, but it doesn't imply stealing.
> 
> Well, I'm definitely arguing copying without permission is immoral.
> And I'll go along somewhat with the idea that immoral copying doesn't
> *necessarily* damage the author (but sometimes it does--I was just
> reading about how Hollywood figures it loses billions of $$ in lost
> sales to pirates).
> 
> But, again, this is NOT about end effects.  You cannot justify an act
> morally because you got away with it or because it turned out to not
> damage the other party.
>

.