Copyrights

[Bootstrap]

Theft isn't connected seamlessly with loss of income. It is not the determining factor of theft at all.

If I have a wheelbarrow, and I never use it or intend to used it - in fact it may cost me something to keep it stored - and someone steals it from me, that it theft regardless of income potential or even if they did me a solid favor in getting rid of it for me. It's still mine.
How does the same apply to intellectual property vs. physical property? There is definitely an arbitrary nature to the concept of "intellectual theft". If I give you a piece of knowledge or information, do I "own" it, thus prohibiting you from ethically doing anything with it?

It is the capitalistic nature of our nation and society that determined which has intellectual property is "private". And I am not completely opposed to the concept, I think that I'm merely recognizing that there is an arbitrary nature to it that is separate from ethics.

All ownership is arbitrary, a "social construction". In some cultures, land is held in common. In some cultures, tools are held in common.

My wheelbarrow is "mine" because of a cultural and legal system that sees it that way. The same is true of software or books. Intellectual property laws exist in a society that wants people to be able to make a living writing software, books, music, and other creative works. It gives them a way to earn money in exchange for their labor.

If you steal that intellectual property, you are undermining the system that allows them to make an income by doing this creative work.

[JohnH]

When you steal intellectual property, you are stealing from the people who created it.

Could you describe to me how reproducing some book or film that was produced 119 years ago is "stealing from the people who created it"?

If a book was written 119 years ago, it is now in the public domain. Copyright is not forever.

If a book is written today and the copyright is owned by a corporation, the copyright lasts 120 years.

FWIW, I think one of the big problems with intellectual property is that the copyright period keeps getting longer and longer. At the time of the American Revolution, it was 14 years. In the early United States, it went up to 28 years. That seems fair. Now it is 70 years after the author dies.

Most authors are not motivated to keep writing new works in the 70 years after they die. Their financial needs are modest after death. I think a much shorter period would be much better.

Right. So that's why I'm saying that reproducing a book written 99 years ago is hardly "stealing".

I knew a man who spent his whole life working on the Greek lexicon that is now most widely used for New Testament Greek. He worked for very little money, but he did need to get paid in order to continue working. And the money people pay for lexicons is what made it possible to pay him.

Most of that kind of work is actually done by people who get grants from foundations or who do academic work. The days of an author being adequately compensated for this kind of work are long behind us, and in any case, Amazon will sell knock-offs with impunity with almost no recourse for copyright holders. (We have books that are reprints we have published that we hold copyrights to, and sometimes a seller with a name like Shnznch Dfsdfgasdgf Llc will just randomly copy it and reprint it, including the new work we did. There is no recourse at all - you can complain it, and the seller will just pop up again with a different name.)

If you take it without paying for it, how is that not a valid definition of "stealing"?

Let's say I am physically located in Russia. It's completely legal there for me to make copies of his book. Do you still consider that stealing?

Do you respect the law when it comes to theft, or do you think theft is something each of us gets to define with our own personal definition?

I don't see intellectual property as a principal of morality anywhere in the Bible, so I think it's entirely a civil matter.

[Bootstrap]

Could you describe to me how reproducing some book or film that was produced 119 years ago is "stealing from the people who created it"?

If a book was written 119 years ago, it is now in the public domain. Copyright is not forever.

If a book is written today and the copyright is owned by a corporation, the copyright lasts 120 years.

Not quite. First off, a "corporate author" is not the same thing as a corporation, this applies to any "work made for hire".

(b) Works Made for Hire.—
In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.

And in that case, it's 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation, whichever comnes first.

https://www.gutenberg.org/help/copyright.html

Works first created by corporate authors on or after January 1, 1978

Works first created on or after January 1, 1978 that are created by a corporate author are protected under U.S. copyright law until 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation whichever occurs first. (Copyright protection will not expire for any works under this rule until at least January 1, 2074.)

FWIW, I think one of the big problems with intellectual property is that the copyright period keeps getting longer and longer. At the time of the American Revolution, it was 14 years. In the early United States, it went up to 28 years. That seems fair. Now it is 70 years after the author dies.

Most authors are not motivated to keep writing new works in the 70 years after they die. Their financial needs are modest after death. I think a much shorter period would be much better.

But 99 years ago, the law was quite different.

As of 2026, qualifying Works published in 1930 or earlier do not have copyright restrictions in the U.S.

So it is quite legal to use works in the public domain, including anything published in 1930 or earlier and many other works.

I knew a man who spent his whole life working on the Greek lexicon that is now most widely used for New Testament Greek. He worked for very little money, but he did need to get paid in order to continue working. And the money people pay for lexicons is what made it possible to pay him.

Most of that kind of work is actually done by people who get grants from foundations or who do academic work. The days of an author being adequately compensated for this kind of work are long behind us, and in any case, Amazon will sell knock-offs with impunity with almost no recourse for copyright holders.

With respect, I think I know quite a few people who have created this kind of work, and I know a lot of the story of many others. I don't think you know what you are talking about here. My friend was hired by a publisher to do this work, and that was possible only because the publisher stood to get its money back.

This kind of job has always been hard to get, few people are hired to do this kind of thing. These days, some people are able to create resources that are freely licensed because they have found a funding model to do it. But most high quality resources are not free.

And it's not that easy to get grants for projects that take many years, where quality must be high and relatively few people, mostly people who actually know Hebrew or Greek, are able to use the resulting work. Some publishers do pay a few people to do this kind of work.

If you take it without paying for it, how is that not a valid definition of "stealing"?

Let's say I am physically located in Russia. It's completely legal there for me to make copies of his book. Do you still consider that stealing?

You are not living in Russia. The law here is pretty clear. I think you are misrepresenting Russian law too, but Russian law is irrelevant. If you steal something according to American law, I do consider it stealing.

Do you respect the law when it comes to theft, or do you think theft is something each of us gets to define with our own personal definition?

I don't see intellectual property as a principal of morality anywhere in the Bible, so I think it's entirely a civil matter.

I don't think the Bible speaks against marijuana, heroin, credit card fraud, identity theft, pornography, cyberstalking, driving without a license, driving under the influence of alcohol, dumping toxic waste, jury tampering, election interference, or financing terrorists.

Does that mean none of these are moral issues?

[R7ehr]

All ownership is arbitrary, a "social construction".

If all ownership is arbitrary, then the ethics are as pliable as the law of ownership. And not all laws get it right. Sometimes laws are just bad laws, other times they are terrible. We don't have to take the position that just because something is law, it is just. And here we have people arguing that these copyright laws are not just. If they are just now, then they must not have been just in the past. And today's laws in the future may not be just.

Intentionally or not, you are arguing that it is unethical to break the law. Others are arguing that the law is unjust while staying silent on whether or not it is unjust to break the law.

[Bootstrap]

All ownership is arbitrary, a "social construction".

If all ownership is arbitrary, then the ethics are as pliable as the law of ownership. And not all laws get it right. Sometimes laws are just bad laws, other times they are terrible. We don't have to take the position that just because something is law, it is just. And here we have people arguing that these copyright laws are not just. If they are just now, then they must not have been just in the past. And today's laws in the future may not be just.

Intentionally or not, you are arguing that it is unethical to break the law. Others are arguing that the law is unjust while staying silent on whether or not it is unjust to break the law.

FWIW, I think the length of the copyright period is unjust and violates the purpose of copyright, which is to incentivize people to create intellectual property by providing a framework to compensate them. I think copyright should expire at the end of the last author's life.

But people can disagree about the best way to structure these things or whether copyright should exist at all. In any society, law represents an agreement about the rules that will be enforced. No law is exactly what everyone wants it to be. But if we each feel free to steal whatever we think should not be under copyright, that's unjust. It hurts people. It hurts the very people who created the resources we value and want. That's true of a lot of laws, actually.

So perhaps nobody here is saying copyright law is exactly what they want. And perhaps nobody here is saying it is OK to steal whatever you think you ought to be able to have, no matter what the law says.

[JohnH]

But people can disagree about the best way to structure these things or whether copyright should exist at all. In any society, law represents an agreement about the rules that will be enforced. No law is exactly what everyone wants it to be. But if we each feel free to steal whatever we think should not be under copyright, that's unjust.

Is anybody saying that?

I am arguing that I don't think copyright laws should exist at all. Nonetheless, I comply with them (to the best of my ability, which is quite difficult these days with things like LLMs).

I think it's improper to refer to violating intellectual property laws as "stealing", though, and it's not based on any biblical ethic of right or wrong. It's simply civil law.

It hurts people.

I think intellectual property laws hurt people.

It hurts the very people who created the resources we value and want. That's true of a lot of laws, actually.

I think intellectual property laws hurt people who create the resources we value and want.

So perhaps nobody here is saying copyright law is exactly what they want. And perhaps nobody here is saying it is OK to steal whatever you think you ought to be able to have, no matter what the law says.

You need to stop using the word "steal" when referring to intellectual "property" laws. It isn't stealing. What's wrong is using deadly force, at the barrel of a gun, to force people not to do something as innocuous as writing out a sentence. I think it's wrong to punish people for doing that just because someone else wrote out the same sentence before.

Interestingly, LLMs are turning this all upside down on its head - which is why I remain puzzled why you are so enthusiastic about them.

[Neto]

Perhaps this thread / discussion might be of interest here, in terms of 'intellectual property':

https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... 8&start=20

[Neto]

This would be rather off-topic here in this thread, but perhaps the resident MennoNet poll maker could create one about what types of work participants here regard as 'worthy of remuneration'. (Hopefully without wandering into the slimy pit of politics.)

[JohnH]

This would be rather off-topic here in this thread, but perhaps the resident MennoNet poll maker could create one about what types of work participants here regard as 'worthy of remuneration'. (Hopefully without wandering into the slimy pit of politics.)

Note that I never said writing books isn’t worthy of being paid. I just don’t agree with the idea that it’s some moral imperative to go sue people at law for violating copyrights. I also don’t consider it “stealing”. I consider it a civil offence.

If one truly wanted to comply with copyright laws, one would not (for example) use LLMs, even though currently you can get away with it.

[Bootstrap]

But people can disagree about the best way to structure these things or whether copyright should exist at all. In any society, law represents an agreement about the rules that will be enforced. No law is exactly what everyone wants it to be. But if we each feel free to steal whatever we think should not be under copyright, that's unjust.

Is anybody saying that?

I don't know. Sometimes I say something clearly to see whether people will agree or disagree with a clear statement. Sometimes it feels like you disagree with everything I say, and that raises the possibility that you might be saying that.

It hurts people.

I think intellectual property laws hurt people.

It hurts the very people who created the resources we value and want. That's true of a lot of laws, actually.

I think intellectual property laws hurt people who create the resources we value and want.

Ideally, it encourages them to create new resources, and especially not to claim credit for someone else's work. And even for freely licensed resources, it can require people to point to the original source. That's helpful when people tamper with lexicons to change what they say and make them express their favorite theology, for instance, or when you have 7 copies of the Greek Septuagint that should be the same but they aren't and you want to know which one was done carefully by someone you respect.

Interestingly, LLMs are turning this all upside down on its head - which is why I remain puzzled why you are so enthusiastic about them.

Interestingly, LLMs make it possible to create new resources with less effort, and to reimagine how we approach some kinds of resources. That makes it easier to create freely licensed resources. Which is something I am actually doing.