<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18852">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face="Comic Sans MS">Some aspects should
not be confused:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face="Comic Sans MS">1. Some goods are
"non-rivalrous", as it is called in economic. That is besically what you are
referring to.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face="Comic Sans MS">2. A fundamental principle
of criminal law that it shoud define crimes precisely and in advance (that is
actually a human right). Theft statutory provisions typically refer to
tangible objects only. Even the punishment of the theft of electricity (though
non-non-rivalruous) violates this principle in NL (not in DE, I don't know
about the US).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face="Comic Sans MS"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face="Comic Sans MS">The risk is that
infringement of all (even non-rivalrous) goods is treated as theft. The
confusion about the apparently generic "intellectual property" concept
exacerbates this confusion (= often deliberate deceit). That is why it is
such a bad concept. Taking someone elses "intellectual property" is not theft,
and perhaps it is not even infrigement because only "intellectual property" is
protected that is explicitly defined in statutes ("works", inventions,
trademarks).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face="Comic Sans MS"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face="Comic Sans MS">Educated people know the
art of generalisation. generalisation is a mistake here.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face="Comic Sans MS"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face="Comic Sans MS">reinier </FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=the.real.edison.carter@gmail.com
href="mailto:the.real.edison.carter@gmail.com">Edison Carter</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net
href="mailto:pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net">Pirate Parties
International -- General Talk</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, December 08, 2009 9:01
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [pp.int.general] map of
intellectual property rights in lund</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>Another problem is the gradual extension of the Theft
concept in criminal law. Originally one could steal only real things. One
can also steal electricity (it is even codified in German law, and in my
country it was recognised by the Supreme Court in 1921). The proper word for
intellectual property has always been: infringement - but why not call it
theft too? Record company lobbyists (RIAA, IFPI) already do. Criminal
provisions for fencing already apply e.g. to copyright.<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>I tend to use the distinction between limited and unlimited
goods.<BR><BR>If I take a car that's theft, because there is only one car and
my taking it deprives the owner.<BR><BR>If I take electricity without paying
for it I am using up some limited generating capacity. The same electricity
(some number of kWh) cannot be sold to another customer because I used it. I
can accept that being called 'theft' too.<BR><BR>Even if I take up the time of
an accountant or lawyer and then don't pay their bill, that is a number of
hours from their working week that they cannot sell to another client.
<BR><BR>However if I copy a CD, I have taken nothing. The original recording
is not affected in any way. The songwriter, recording artist or anyone else in
the music industry were not inconvenienced at all. At most they may have lost
a sale but this is no different that if I had chosen to buy someone else's CD,
listen to something in the public domain instead, or go for a walk in the park
instead of listening to music.<BR><BR> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>Some people don't understand that information is really
something very different than material goods. There is a law of conservation
of matter (mass), but no law of conservation of information (I am referring
to laws of physics here, of course!)<BR><FONT
color=#888888><BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>I might divide this further into three categories;<BR> Limited
tangible items such as cars, handbags, or televisions. Or physical objects
such as polycarbonate disks containing information.<BR> Limited
intangible things such as 'time' or 'capacity' (Artist's time for interviews
and performing, number of seats in a venue, etc)<BR> Infinitely
reproducible 'information' such as the contents of a DVD or CD, or the number
of receivers that can tune into a single broadcast signal.<BR><BR></DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>____________________________________________________<BR>Pirate Parties
International - General
Talk<BR>pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net<BR>http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>