Andreas on June 11, 2012, 11:41:54 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud

Obviously, the creator of the IP has no standing within these elements.

Based on those... Plagiarism is fraud, but the original creator is not the victim. The readers are.

Interesting.
And i guess it would become criminal fraud only where the readers are asked to pay for the erroneously labeled bootleg product (or in other ways suffer damages - maybe they suffer a major embarrassment when bragging at high-profile dinner parties about reading Uderzo's Escape from Terra? ;) )

macsnafu on June 12, 2012, 08:58:06 am
violation of copyright is essentially fraud:  falsely claiming that a different company or author is the source of the material.
No.  Publishing your novel while claiming that I wrote it is fraud.  Publishing your novel without your permission while making it clear that you are the author is not fraud but is copyright violation.


Yes, you're right.  But in the case of copyright violation, not fraud, what is the actual harm to the author?  Sure, the author isn't making any money off a novel that was published without his knowledge or permission (unless of course, the publisher decides to pay the author something anyway), but that's not really "harm" as I understand it.
I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.

customdesigned on June 12, 2012, 10:23:35 am
violation of copyright is essentially fraud:  falsely claiming that a different company or author is the source of the material.
No.  Publishing your novel while claiming that I wrote it is fraud.  Publishing your novel without your permission while making it clear that you are the author is not fraud but is copyright violation.

So if there is no copyright in AnCap, the  FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) license (yes, I understand that no license is necessary with no copyright) that best captures the AnCap spirit would be BSD - which allows copies and derivatives for any purpose, provided the original author is properly credited.

There was some dislike for the GPL expressed here.  I should point out that the GPL is necessary because of copyright - otherwise a competitor can take your work, incorporate it into a proprietary product, and finally (here's the kicker) *copyright* the proprietary product and forbid reverse engineering.  The GPL very cleverly makes open source safe for business in an environment that includes government enforced copyright.

EENalley on June 12, 2012, 10:26:36 am
violation of copyright is essentially fraud:  falsely claiming that a different company or author is the source of the material.
No.  Publishing your novel while claiming that I wrote it is fraud.  Publishing your novel without your permission while making it clear that you are the author is not fraud but is copyright violation.


Yes, you're right.  But in the case of copyright violation, not fraud, what is the actual harm to the author?  Sure, the author isn't making any money off a novel that was published without his knowledge or permission (unless of course, the publisher decides to pay the author something anyway), but that's not really "harm" as I understand it.


So, if you grow an acre of corn, and I come take half and sell it and refuse to pay you for your corn, or the labor that went into growing it, that's ok?  Theft is theft just because you're stealing a book instead of food or guns, or anything else for sale, that doesn't make it any less than theft.  As a writer, I work hard to produce the stories I write.  I'm entitled to enjoy the fruits of my labors.  So are you with your hypothetical corn.  I won't take your stuff, please don't try to justify stealing mine, or Sandy's or L. Neil Smiths, or any other author.

macsnafu on June 12, 2012, 10:58:30 am
violation of copyright is essentially fraud:  falsely claiming that a different company or author is the source of the material.
No.  Publishing your novel while claiming that I wrote it is fraud.  Publishing your novel without your permission while making it clear that you are the author is not fraud but is copyright violation.


Yes, you're right.  But in the case of copyright violation, not fraud, what is the actual harm to the author?  Sure, the author isn't making any money off a novel that was published without his knowledge or permission (unless of course, the publisher decides to pay the author something anyway), but that's not really "harm" as I understand it.


So, if you grow an acre of corn, and I come take half and sell it and refuse to pay you for your corn, or the labor that went into growing it, that's ok?  Theft is theft just because you're stealing a book instead of food or guns, or anything else for sale, that doesn't make it any less than theft.  As a writer, I work hard to produce the stories I write.  I'm entitled to enjoy the fruits of my labors.  So are you with your hypothetical corn.  I won't take your stuff, please don't try to justify stealing mine, or Sandy's or L. Neil Smiths, or any other author.

Heh.  I should have expected this response.

First of all, I was asking, not trying to make a particular point.  There may indeed be something wrong with taking the results of someone else's efforts and profiting from it without their permission.  But exactly and explicitly what is it that's wrong with it? That's what I'm trying to clarify.   Again, no actual harm has been done to that person.  They're merely not being paid for their efforts.  No one has a right to be paid for their efforts.  If you write a book that no one wants to pay for, no rights-violation has taken place.  If I re-publish your book without your permission, and no one buys my edition of your book, meaning I make no profit off of it, has something wrong still been done to you?  Or does the alleged harm only occur if I profit from your efforts?

But your example is clearly not analogous, because there is an actual, physical product that has been stolen from the owner, regardless of the amount of effort that the corn grower has gone to, he clearly owned the corn and the land that the corn was grown on.  Theft and trespassing have clearly taken place. 

Theft and trespassing hasn't necessarily take place if someone gets a copy of a book and then re-publishes it.  The author still has their original manuscript or file on their computer, and if the book is publicly available, then no trespass was necessary to get a copy of it.
I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.

SandySandfort on June 12, 2012, 11:07:20 am
And i guess it would become criminal fraud only where the readers are asked to pay for the erroneously labeled bootleg product (or in other ways suffer damages...

Not unless the buyer did not get what he paid for.

Bob wants to buy Debbie Does Dishes. The bootlegger sells him a pirated copy of Debbie Does Dishes. Not actionable by the buyer, because no damages. He wanted Debbie Does Dishes; he got Debbie Does Dishes.

Bob wants to buy Debbie Does Dishes. The bootlegger sells him a pirated copy of The Little Mermaid. He paid for something and did not get it. Assuming the other 8 elements are present, Bob was defrauded out of the purchase price of Debbie Does Dishes.

... maybe they suffer a major embarrassment when bragging at high-profile dinner parties about reading Uderzo's Escape from Terra? ;) )

Okay, who is this Uderzo, and did anyone see where I put my gun?

I guess I need to add a smiley face, so one of the Forum's yahoos doesn't start huffing and puffing about a violation of the ZAP or some such.  :)
« Last Edit: June 12, 2012, 11:15:10 am by SandySandfort »

macsnafu on June 12, 2012, 11:08:09 am
violation of copyright is essentially fraud:  falsely claiming that a different company or author is the source of the material.
No.  Publishing your novel while claiming that I wrote it is fraud.  Publishing your novel without your permission while making it clear that you are the author is not fraud but is copyright violation.

So if there is no copyright in AnCap, the  FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) license (yes, I understand that no license is necessary with no copyright) that best captures the AnCap spirit would be BSD - which allows copies and derivatives for any purpose, provided the original author is properly credited.

There was some dislike for the GPL expressed here.  I should point out that the GPL is necessary because of copyright - otherwise a competitor can take your work, incorporate it into a proprietary product, and finally (here's the kicker) *copyright* the proprietary product and forbid reverse engineering.  The GPL very cleverly makes open source safe for business in an environment that includes government enforced copyright.

Yep, as I understand it, under current copyright laws, it's impossible, or practically so, to release a work directly into the public domain, and thus prevent someone else from claiming the rights to it.
I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.

macsnafu on June 12, 2012, 11:09:48 am
And i guess it would become criminal fraud only where the readers are asked to pay for the erroneously labeled bootleg product (or in other ways suffer damages...

Not unless the buyer did not get what he paid for.

Bob wants to buy Debbie Does Dishes. The bootlegger sells him a pirated copy of Debbie Does Dishes. Not actionable by the buyer, because no damages. He wanted Debbie Does Dishes; he got Debbie Does Dishes.

Bob wants to buy Debbie Does Dishes. The bootlegger sells him a pirated copy of The Little Mermaid. He paid for something and did not get it. Assuming the other 8 elements are present, Bob was defrauded out of the purchase price of Debbie Does Dishes.

... maybe they suffer a major embarrassment when bragging at high-profile dinner parties about reading Uderzo's Escape from Terra? ;) )

Okay, who is this Uderzo, and did anyone see where I put my gun?

You never read Asterix? 

Albert Uderzo (born 25 April 1927) is a French comic book artist, and scriptwriter. He is best known for his work on the Astérix series, but also drew other comics such as Oumpah-pah, also in collaboration with René Goscinny.

--Wikipedia
I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.

Killydd on June 12, 2012, 11:51:59 am
First, my apologies, I just realized that I was confusing "trademark" with "copyright" which is a different matter entirely.  However, I do still believe that copyright should be reasonably enforced:
And i guess it would become criminal fraud only where the readers are asked to pay for the erroneously labeled bootleg product (or in other ways suffer damages...

Not unless the buyer did not get what he paid for.

Bob wants to buy Debbie Does Dishes. The bootlegger sells him a pirated copy of Debbie Does Dishes. Not actionable by the buyer, because no damages. He wanted Debbie Does Dishes; he got Debbie Does Dishes.

Bob wants to buy Debbie Does Dishes. The bootlegger sells him a pirated copy of The Little Mermaid. He paid for something and did not get it. Assuming the other 8 elements are present, Bob was defrauded out of the purchase price of Debbie Does Dishes.

However, there is a reasonable assumption on the part of the buyer that some part of his purchase price is making it back to the original author when he buys an item.  Whether this is done as a lump sum or as micropayments is immaterial to this assumption:  part of what the end user is buying is the knowledge that he is supporting the original author. 
violation of copyright is essentially fraud:  falsely claiming that a different company or author is the source of the material.
No.  Publishing your novel while claiming that I wrote it is fraud.  Publishing your novel without your permission while making it clear that you are the author is not fraud but is copyright violation.


Yes, you're right.  But in the case of copyright violation, not fraud, what is the actual harm to the author?  Sure, the author isn't making any money off a novel that was published without his knowledge or permission (unless of course, the publisher decides to pay the author something anyway), but that's not really "harm" as I understand it.


So, if you grow an acre of corn, and I come take half and sell it and refuse to pay you for your corn, or the labor that went into growing it, that's ok?  Theft is theft just because you're stealing a book instead of food or guns, or anything else for sale, that doesn't make it any less than theft.  As a writer, I work hard to produce the stories I write.  I'm entitled to enjoy the fruits of my labors.  So are you with your hypothetical corn.  I won't take your stuff, please don't try to justify stealing mine, or Sandy's or L. Neil Smiths, or any other author.

Heh.  I should have expected this response.

First of all, I was asking, not trying to make a particular point.  There may indeed be something wrong with taking the results of someone else's efforts and profiting from it without their permission.  But exactly and explicitly what is it that's wrong with it? That's what I'm trying to clarify.   Again, no actual harm has been done to that person.  They're merely not being paid for their efforts.  No one has a right to be paid for their efforts.  If you write a book that no one wants to pay for, no rights-violation has taken place.  If I re-publish your book without your permission, and no one buys my edition of your book, meaning I make no profit off of it, has something wrong still been done to you?  Or does the alleged harm only occur if I profit from your efforts?

But your example is clearly not analogous, because there is an actual, physical product that has been stolen from the owner, regardless of the amount of effort that the corn grower has gone to, he clearly owned the corn and the land that the corn was grown on.  Theft and trespassing have clearly taken place. 

Theft and trespassing hasn't necessarily take place if someone gets a copy of a book and then re-publishes it.  The author still has their original manuscript or file on their computer, and if the book is publicly available, then no trespass was necessary to get a copy of it.

Some responses: 
clearly, your profit is not needed for theft to occur:  it is still theft if you steal my wallet and throw it in the garbage, since your actions have directly harmed me. 
Even if you give it away for free, you have still stolen potential sales of my book.  It may be difficult to quantify this damage, but in principle it is there.  However, that does just mean one more item for the arbitration to consider. 
Effectively, your argument is that "I did not destroy your usage of it, so I did not really take it."  However, your usage of it did degrade my usage of it.  Otherwise, we would not have created things like guild secrets and eventually patents and copyrights.  If you took some action that harmed my crops, such as releasing your pesticide intentionally where you knew it would cause me to not be able to label it organic anymore, that is a clear violation of my rights.

mellyrn on June 12, 2012, 12:45:03 pm
Quote
Even if you give it away for free, you have still stolen potential sales of my book.

In that case, used-book stores also "steal" potential sales.  True, those copies had been bought once (at least once; possibly more!) before, but the purchaser of the used copy is buying (actively paying for, not even getting it free) your work in a way that does not profit you.   Libraries also "steal" potential sales -- that's one purchase per ?how many hundreds of readers?  And yet neither re-sellers nor lenders have caused author-wannabes to throw up their hands and refuse to write; I dare say they didn't put a meaningful dent in JK Rowlings' bean fund.

macsnafu on June 12, 2012, 12:54:55 pm
First, my apologies, I just realized that I was confusing "trademark" with "copyright" which is a different matter entirely.  However, I do still believe that copyright should be reasonably enforced:
And i guess it would become criminal fraud only where the readers are asked to pay for the erroneously labeled bootleg product (or in other ways suffer damages...

Not unless the buyer did not get what he paid for.

Bob wants to buy Debbie Does Dishes. The bootlegger sells him a pirated copy of Debbie Does Dishes. Not actionable by the buyer, because no damages. He wanted Debbie Does Dishes; he got Debbie Does Dishes.

Bob wants to buy Debbie Does Dishes. The bootlegger sells him a pirated copy of The Little Mermaid. He paid for something and did not get it. Assuming the other 8 elements are present, Bob was defrauded out of the purchase price of Debbie Does Dishes.

However, there is a reasonable assumption on the part of the buyer that some part of his purchase price is making it back to the original author when he buys an item.  Whether this is done as a lump sum or as micropayments is immaterial to this assumption:  part of what the end user is buying is the knowledge that he is supporting the original author. 

Is there such an assumption?  Tell that to the record companies!   ;-)

Quote
Heh.  I should have expected this response.

First of all, I was asking, not trying to make a particular point.  There may indeed be something wrong with taking the results of someone else's efforts and profiting from it without their permission.  But exactly and explicitly what is it that's wrong with it? That's what I'm trying to clarify.   Again, no actual harm has been done to that person.  They're merely not being paid for their efforts.  No one has a right to be paid for their efforts.  If you write a book that no one wants to pay for, no rights-violation has taken place.  If I re-publish your book without your permission, and no one buys my edition of your book, meaning I make no profit off of it, has something wrong still been done to you?  Or does the alleged harm only occur if I profit from your efforts?

But your example is clearly not analogous, because there is an actual, physical product that has been stolen from the owner, regardless of the amount of effort that the corn grower has gone to, he clearly owned the corn and the land that the corn was grown on.  Theft and trespassing have clearly taken place. 

Theft and trespassing hasn't necessarily take place if someone gets a copy of a book and then re-publishes it.  The author still has their original manuscript or file on their computer, and if the book is publicly available, then no trespass was necessary to get a copy of it.

Quote
Some responses: 
clearly, your profit is not needed for theft to occur:  it is still theft if you steal my wallet and throw it in the garbage, since your actions have directly harmed me. 
Even if you give it away for free, you have still stolen potential sales of my book.  It may be difficult to quantify this damage, but in principle it is there.  However, that does just mean one more item for the arbitration to consider. 
Effectively, your argument is that "I did not destroy your usage of it, so I did not really take it."  However, your usage of it did degrade my usage of it.  Otherwise, we would not have created things like guild secrets and eventually patents and copyrights.  If you took some action that harmed my crops, such as releasing your pesticide intentionally where you knew it would cause me to not be able to label it organic anymore, that is a clear violation of my rights.
Again, this is not my "argument".  Really and truly, I have been struggling with the copyright issue for a long time.  Yes, I do think that something is wrong with taking someone else's work without their permission and profiting from it.  But I cannot explicitly state what is wrong. 

It is clearly not "theft" as the original creator has not been deprived of their property.  And I don't believe there can be property rights in the ideas themselves.  And even though ideas can be 'fixed' into physical form, i.e. book, compact disc, etc, the only inherent property is the actual physical form, not the idea fixed to that form.

"Degraded the usage of it" has merit, but still seems a bit weak, as mellyrn has shown.  It still claims a property right in the work, or the effort put into creating the work, without showing that it is, indeed property.

I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.

EENalley on June 12, 2012, 02:00:34 pm
Quote
Even if you give it away for free, you have still stolen potential sales of my book.

In that case, used-book stores also "steal" potential sales.  True, those copies had been bought once (at least once; possibly more!) before, but the purchaser of the used copy is buying (actively paying for, not even getting it free) your work in a way that does not profit you.   Libraries also "steal" potential sales -- that's one purchase per ?how many hundreds of readers?  And yet neither re-sellers nor lenders have caused author-wannabes to throw up their hands and refuse to write; I dare say they didn't put a meaningful dent in JK Rowlings' bean fund.


The book was bought once in each instance and the publisher and author compensated per their contract.  I don't owe Ford more than once if I re-sell my car.  But if I steal the plans for it and have some magic machine that produces limitless copies with no further input and started selling those, I'd imagine Ford might have something to say about that.  And rightly so.

Just because there's a computer involved doesn't make it any less theft. 

Andreas on June 12, 2012, 03:20:02 pm
Ok, now you made me angry: It was already made clear how it is not fraud, now tell me how on earth can it be theft?
Theft involves the preservation of scarcity, and the deprivation of the victim. Sharing involves neither, therefore sharing CANNOT be theft.

Squatting in a building is not stealing the rent that normally would be payable to its owner. That's not theft.
Similarly, obtaining a copy of a work without paying for it is NOT stealing the payment normally payable to the seller of that work. Also not theft.
The problem with the present business models for "IP" matters is that they MAKE NO SENSE!!!
The Media Moghouls, instead of fixing their side of it, attempts to use government to plug the big-ass holes in their plan... while engaging in intellectual sloth of the worst kind.
Patents, Copyright, all that... it's doomed. Trying to keep it alive will cause tremendous harm.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2012, 03:37:52 pm by Andreas »

Andreas on June 12, 2012, 03:35:55 pm
And i guess it would become criminal fraud only where the readers are asked to pay for the erroneously labeled bootleg product (or in other ways suffer damages...

Not unless the buyer did not get what he paid for.

Bob wants to buy Debbie Does Dishes. The bootlegger sells him a pirated copy of Debbie Does Dishes. Not actionable by the buyer, because no damages. He wanted Debbie Does Dishes; he got Debbie Does Dishes.

Bob wants to buy Debbie Does Dishes. The bootlegger sells him a pirated copy of The Little Mermaid. He paid for something and did not get it. Assuming the other 8 elements are present, Bob was defrauded out of the purchase price of Debbie Does Dishes.

... maybe they suffer a major embarrassment when bragging at high-profile dinner parties about reading Uderzo's Escape from Terra? ;) )

Okay, who is this Uderzo, and did anyone see where I put my gun?

I guess I need to add a smiley face, so one of the Forum's yahoos doesn't start huffing and puffing about a violation of the ZAP or some such.  :)

Sorry, I didn't elaborate my point very well.
Example: Someone buys a work of art, and attributes part of the value of the work to the prestige (real or imagined) of its creator (let's say it's a Picasso). Now it turns out it's really a Johnson, bootlegged and re-signed as a Picasso. This, to my understanding, is fraud, since the purchase was in part driven by the fraudulent claim. If it had been "Debbie does dishes", obviously a work the value of which is derived entirely from its usability, then as you say, no harm no foul.

Uderzo is the surviving creator of Asterix ;) That bit was just to try and spin out an example of a fraudulent claim that could potentially cause harm (loss of face)... it was far fetched, I admit.

EENalley on June 12, 2012, 03:40:04 pm
Ok, now you made me angry: It was already made clear how it is not fraud, now tell me how on earth can it be theft?
Theft involves the preservation of scarcity, and the deprivation of the victim. Sharing involves neither, therefore sharing CANNOT be theft.

Squatting in a building is not stealing the rent that normally would be payable to its owner. That's not theft.
Similarly, obtaining a copy of a work without paying for it is NOT stealing the payment normally payable to the seller of that work. Also not theft.
The problem with the present business models for "IP" matters is that they MAKE NO SENSE!!!
The Media Moghouls, instead of fixing their side of it, attempts to use government to plug the big-ass holes in their plan... while engaging in intellectual sloth of the worst kind.
Patents, Copyright, all that... it's doomed. Trying to keep it alive will cause tremendous harm.

Huh?  I'm not talking about sharing.  I'm talking about someone taking a manuscript copy running off 10K copies and selling it.  Sharing is perfectly fine.  The library paid for their copy to lend. 

 

anything