Copyrights

[Bootstrap]

It's not pedantic quibbling if you actually create materials and want to make them freely available. Only the copyright holder has the right to create a free license. I actually create freely licensed materials, and it's important to understand the law if you want to do that.

In the context above it was simple to understand what people were saying. Most people think of a public domain licence or a CC0 licence as saying "he didn't copyright it" - that is, he is not asserting any rights.

I don't think any of us here can claim to be experts in understanding, much less explaining, copyright law.

Why do you take offense when I clarify that?

When you say copyright is evil, I am merely pointing out that you need to own the copyright if you want to give it away, and copyright is merely the right to decide what people can do with your work.

Stealing intellectual property is no different than stealing physical property. If I make a table, I own it. If I create a Bible translation, I own it. I can decide who can use it how. That makes it possible for me to give it away, because I own it in the first place. You can't give it away if it belongs to someone else.

[JohnH]

Stealing intellectual property is no different than stealing physical property.

The two are actually completely different.

If I make a table, I own it. If I create a Bible translation, I own it. I can decide who can use it how. That makes it possible for me to give it away, because I own it in the first place. You can't give it away if it belongs to someone else.

If someone steals a table, you don't have it anymore.

If someone writes out a copy of a Bible translation you made, you still have your translation.

In the era of LLMs, where copyright laws are no longer respected, I hope you could appreciate seeing the need for new understandings of "intellectual property". Certain groups like the FSF have found ways to ensure freedom from intellectual property laws by using those intellectual property laws to craft things such as the GPL.

[Bootstrap]

Stealing intellectual property is no different than stealing physical property.

The two are actually completely different.

If I make a table, I own it. If I create a Bible translation, I own it. I can decide who can use it how. That makes it possible for me to give it away, because I own it in the first place. You can't give it away if it belongs to someone else.

If someone steals a table, you don't have it anymore.

If someone writes out a copy of a Bible translation you made, you still have your translation.

In the era of LLMs, where copyright laws are no longer respected, I hope you could appreciate seeing the need for new understandings of "intellectual property". Certain groups like the FSF have found ways to ensure freedom from intellectual property laws by using those intellectual property laws to craft things such as the GPL.

If someone spends their entire life creating written works or music, and everyone just steals them, then they cannot make a living from their work. That's actually a LOT like making a table that someone just steals.

Groups like FSF are VERY careful to protect intellectual property rights and respect copyright holders. I am lucky enough that most of my work has involved creating free software or free resources of various kinds, but that requires finding an employer who supports that and a business model that makes it possible.

When you steal intellectual property, you are stealing from the people who created it. You are taking money away from them and making it harder for them to make a living. Some people feel strangely entitled to do that simply because it isn't something physical like a table.

[JohnH]

If someone spends their entire life creating written works or music, and everyone just steals them, then they cannot make a living from their work. That's actually a LOT like making a table that someone just steals.

No, it isn't. They are two different things. For most of human history, there was no concept of "intellectual property", much less comparing it with stealing physical objects.

Groups like FSF are VERY careful to protect intellectual property rights and respect copyright holders.

Groups like the FSF have spoken out quite forcefully against intellectual property laws; however, like myself, they are careful to comply with laws that exist, whether they are just or not.

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"?

You are taking money away from them and making it harder for them to make a living. Some people feel strangely entitled to do that simply because it isn't something physical like a table.

That isn't a valid definition of "stealing". I have about zero respect for America's intellectual property laws, particularly when corporations like Disney have successfully extended the definition of copyrights to favour large corporations and to make them last much, much longer than they used to. I still generally comply with laws I don't have respect for, but I also don't really think you're going to find much support for intellectual property laws in the Bible, which I consider to be the final source and authority of what is lawful and what is not.

[Bootstrap]

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.

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.

You are taking money away from them and making it harder for them to make a living. Some people feel strangely entitled to do that simply because it isn't something physical like a table.

That isn't a valid definition of "stealing". I have about zero respect for America's intellectual property laws, particularly when corporations like Disney have successfully extended the definition of copyrights to favour large corporations and to make them last much, much longer than they used to. I still generally comply with laws I don't have respect for, but I also don't really think you're going to find much support for intellectual property laws in the Bible, which I consider to be the final source and authority of what is lawful and what is not.

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.

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

[R7ehr]

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

Well, how can something be stolen, if the owner still has it?

[Bootstrap]

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

Well, how can something be stolen, if the owner still has it?

Does the owner still have an income if everyone steals it without paying for it? That income is what you are stealing.

What if I sneak into a concert without paying for a ticket. Am I stealing? What if I go to see the doctor, but refuse to pay for it afterward. Am I stealing?

[ken_sylvania]

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

Well, how can something be stolen, if the owner still has it?

Does the owner still have an income if everyone steals it without paying for it? That income is what you are stealing.

What if I sneak into a concert without paying for a ticket. Am I stealing? What if I go to see the doctor, but refuse to pay for it afterward. Am I stealing?

If I live next to the arena and listen to the concert from my back deck, am I stealing? If I stand on a stepladder and look over the fence to see the concert, am I stealing?

[R7ehr]

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

Well, how can something be stolen, if the owner still has it?

Does the owner still have an income if everyone steals it without paying for it? That income is what you are stealing.

What if I sneak into a concert without paying for a ticket. Am I stealing? What if I go to see the doctor, but refuse to pay for it afterward. Am I stealing?

A: Not if he's dead.

If you build a storage building, are you stealing income from other people who provide storage buildings? Income is limited, not, strictly speaking, "stolen".

You can easily get into the tunnel thinking that the way it currently is, is the way that it always was or is the way that it should be. It's instructive to keep in mind how many of these copywrite laws have been customized for corporations profits, and are based on Western thinking. These are not matters that are timeless principles and universal for all mankind at all. And I am speaking as someone who holds commercial patents and trademarks. I'm not uniformly, or necessarily principally, opposed to the system. And as someone who has some experience with commercial infringement.

[R7ehr]

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.