![]()
"The law is wiser than cabal or interest."
Burke, 1794.
===================================================
From http://www.technewsworld.com/story/MPAA-Takes-Down-Torrent-P2P-Site-40552.html
"The music industry's pursuit of P2P operators and users has proven ineffective,
according to some analysts. "Once again, the content industry is fighting
yesterday's battle," Yankee Group senior analyst Mike Goodman said. "It's
Napster part two."
The movie industry won a court ruling against movie and TV show download service
LokiTorrent.com this week, shuttering the site almost immediately after a U.S.
District Court in Dallas sided with the industry and declared the site could be
taken down.
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) also moved to scare some users,
posting a message on the shut-down LokiTorrent that read, "You can click, but
you can't hide."
LokiTorrent used BitTorrent technology to break digital files such as movies
into smaller pieces or "torrents" that are easier to download and share. It was
likely targeted by the movie industry because of its prominence and its central
server system.
Experts say, however, that other services, some of which may be decentralized,
will continue to emerge, and that the earlier case of music file sharing has
proven that crackdowns on the services, and even the users, is largely
ineffective.
Show Musn't Go On
The MPAA had argued that LokiTorrent was a platform for piracy, declaring that
the illegal downloading "robs thousands of honest, hard-working people of their
livelihood, and stifles creativity." Users had been able to use the site to
download feature films and television shows, among many other types of content.
"Illegally downloading movies from sites such as these without proper
authorization violates the law, is theft, and is not anonymous," the MPAA said.
The association also won access to the LokiTorrent server logs and indicated its
intention to use them to find users.
"Stealing movies leaves a trail," said the MPAA notice. "The only way not to get
caught is to stop." "
====================SNIP=========================
From
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/MPAA-Takes-Down-Torrent-P2P-Site-40552.html
"The music industry's pursuit of P2P operators and users has proven ineffective,
according to some analysts. "Once again, the content industry is fighting
yesterday's battle," Yankee Group senior analyst Mike Goodman said. "It's
Napster part two."
The movie industry won a court ruling against movie and TV show download service
LokiTorrent.com this week, shuttering the site almost immediately after a U.S.
District Court in Dallas sided with the industry and declared the site could be
taken down.
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) also moved to scare some users,
posting a message on the shut-down LokiTorrent that read, "You can click, but
you can't hide."
LokiTorrent used BitTorrent technology to break digital files such as movies
into smaller pieces or "torrents" that are easier to download and share. It was
likely targeted by the movie industry because of its prominence and its central
server system.
Experts say, however, that other services, some of which may be decentralized,
will continue to emerge, and that the earlier case of music file sharing has
proven that crackdowns on the services, and even the users, is largely
ineffective.
Show Musn't Go On
The MPAA had argued that LokiTorrent was a platform for piracy, declaring that
the illegal downloading "robs thousands of honest, hard-working people of their
livelihood, and stifles creativity." Users had been able to use the site to
download feature films and television shows, among many other types of content.
"Illegally downloading movies from sites such as these without proper
authorization violates the law, is theft, and is not anonymous," the MPAA said.
The association also won access to the LokiTorrent server logs and indicated its
intention to use them to find users.
"Stealing movies leaves a trail," said the MPAA notice. "The only way not to get
caught is to stop." "
====================SNIP=========================
What bothers me is this incessant , slimy misrepresentation of the word
"stealing". For centuries the tradition in law is that theft, or the layperson's
word, "stealing", is to intentionally deprive a rightful owner of the thing
stolen.
Before we get into this, one must understand that the term
"identify theft" is an unfortunate misnomer, because this crime is actually
"fraud" by another name. It is quite obvious that one cannot have their identity
stolen, because if this happened, suddenly you would no longer HAVE your
identity, and your friends, co-workers, and family would suddenly no longer
recognize you or know you, and in fact, you wouldn't even know yourself...it
would be like total amnesia, but amnesia is not identity theft because no one
else "takes" your identity.
I mention this because invariably, someone thinks they
have found a hole in the argument about this by referencing "identity theft".
It's fraud, not theft.
I also found an interesting article at
http://www.baldwins.com/ELibrary/BSCArticleArchive/nowtheycanjailyoufrostealing.htm"
"NOW THEY CAN JAIL YOU FOR
STEALING A TRADE SECRET - WHATEVER THAT MIGHT BE "
" Theft
of intellectual property
Other changes to the Crimes
Act mean that theft of intellectual property may now also be a criminal offence,
punishable by up to seven years in prison.
For theft, the Crimes Act requires the dishonest taking of
property with intent to deprive an owner permanently of the property or any
interest in the property. The definition of "property" has now been widened to
include any tangible or intangible thing.
Intangible property may include intellectual property or
confidential information. A dishonest person could offend under this section by
depriving the true owner of the ability to obtain intellectual property
protection and commercialise his/her intellectual property.
If a dishonest person takes confidential information from
someone else, such as his/her employer, and applies for patent protection in
his/her own name without the consent of the true inventor, and with the
intention of depriving the inventor of the right to commercialise the invention
or the right to obtain patent protection, that person could now be charged with
theft. "
==================SNIP=======================
Now, I reference this article to show how the Copyright
Cartel and IP IDIOTS have perverted and twisted the notion of what constitutes
theft, beyond anything that judges for centuries would recognize..
For centuries, the whole idea of theft has been that the
person doing the stealing, intentionally deprives (usually the intent is to
permanently deprive) the rightful owner, of the value or service of the thing
"stolen". It is this unbalance or inequity that served as the cornerstone of why
"stealing' was wrong, and should be punished.
This is, in my opinion, directly in contrast to what the
Copyright Cartel and IP Idiots would have the "new" interpretation , be.
Let's examine what THEY would have us believe. In the
bizarre world that the Copyright Cartel would have us live, if you go to the
library, take a book that is copyrighted, and to which you do not have the
express permission of the copyright holder to copy , and copy a few pages, and
start to leave the building with your copies, THEY would have bells and whistles
go off and a cop nab you at the door, you would be arrested and charged with
theft.
THEY would equate the copying of a few pages, with you
breaking into a motor vehicle and driving off with it, or slipping a music CD
under your coat and walking out of the store with it.
The average, reasonable person would see that the copying
of a chapter from a book in a library without permission of the author, IS NOT
THE SAME AS, stuffing your coat with snack cakes at the local convenience
store and walking out with them, but not the Copyright Cartel !
As anyone with half a brain can intuit, the difference is
that the book in the library is NOT diminished, is still in the possession of
the rightful owner, and if this were to go to court and the person were charged
with theft, it would be a cakewalk for the defense, and most probably, the judge
would get quite irritated at any DA bringing such a case before him.
ENGLISH COMMON LAW CONCEPT OF THEFT
From
http://www.naturenet.net/law/common.html#thef face="Arial">
we read this about the concept of theft....
" This paragraph excludes the special case of commoners exercising common rights
- now a rare event.
In many cases people take things from the countryside,
such as stones, wood, earth, and so on. They have all committed theft if this is
not authorised by the landowner. They have not committed it until they actually
take it away, but not necessarily taken off the site, e.g. walking off holding
something is probably enough - any successful prosecution must show that they
have intended to permanently deprive the owner of the item. See also Wildlife
and Countryside Act regarding uprooting plants."
If we move forward in time to our OWN country, the First
President of the United States, George Washington said this...
"Paper Money is Theft!"
George Washington
That being said, back to the Common Law notion of what
would constitute "theft".
English Common, recognized that physical things like money, cattle, weapons,
clothes, etc., could be wrongfully taken from the rightful owner, and the
"wrongness" of it, really hinged on the fact that then, the rightful owner no
longer had either physical or constructive possession of those items, and was
deprived of their use or value.
It would be quite ludicrous for example, if I stayed with
you a while and took note of how your ax was made, and made a copy of that
ax,(with my own tools and materials) so close it looked and worked identically,
that, if I then left your house with the ax , that you would claim I "stole"
your ax. It would be dismissed, because I could prove you still maintained your
rightful possession of that ax. You could use it, sell it, do whatever you wish
with it. In short, me making a copy of YOUR ax, in no way diminished you or made
you less whole.
Here's an interesting site for anyone interested in the
history of laws worldwide:
http://www.duhaime.org/Law_museum/hist.asp
( Timetable of Laws )
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Furtum.html
" William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D.:
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities,
John Murray,
London,
1875.
FURTUM, "theft," is
one of the four kinds of delicts which were the foundation of
obligationes; it is also called "crimen."
Moveable things only could be the objects of furtum;
for the fraudulent handling (contrectatio fradulosa)
of a thing was furtum, and
contrectatio is defined to be "loco movere."
But a man might commit theft without carrying off another person's property.
Thus it was furtum to use a thing which was deposited
(depositum).
It was also furtum to use a thing which had been lent
for use, in a way different from that which the lender had agreed to; but with
this qualification, that the borrower must believe that he was doing it against
the owner's consent, and that the owner would not consent to such use if he was
aware of it; for
dolus malus was an essential ingredient in furtum.
Another requisite of furtum
(Dig.47 tit.2 s1) is the "lucri faciendi gratia,"
the intention of appropriating the property. This was otherwise expressed by
saying that furtum consisted in the intention (furtum
ex affectu consistit; or, sine affectu furandi non
committitur,
Gaius, ii.50). It was not necessary, in order to constitute
furtum, that the thief should know whose property the
thing was. A person who was in the power of another might be the object of
furtum (Inst.
4 1 §9). A debtor might commit furtum by taking a
thing which he had given as a pledge (pignori)
to a creditor; or by taking his property when in the possession of a
bona fide possessor. Thus there might be
furtum either of a moveable thing itself, or of the
use of a thing, or of the possession, as it is expressed (Inst.
4 1 §1).
The definition of
furtum in the Institutes is rei contrectatio
fraudulosa, without the addition of the word "alienae."
Accordingly the definition comprises both the case of a man stealing the
property of another, and also the case of a man stealing his own property, as
when a man fraudulently takes a moveable thing, which is his property, from a
person who has the legal possession of it. This latter case is the "furtum
possessionis." The definition in the Institutes is not intended as a
classification of theft into three different kinds, but only to show by way of
example the extent of the meaning of the term Furtum.
This is well explained by Vangerow, Pandekten, &c. iii. p550. See also
Rein, Das Criminalrecht der Römer, p304.
A person might commit
furtum by aiding in a furtum, as if a man
should jostle you in order to give another the opportunity of taking your money;
or drive away your sheep or cattle in order that another might get possession of
them; but if it were done merely in a sportive way, and not with a view of
aiding in a theft, it was not furtum, though there
might be in such case an actio utilis under the
Lex Aquilia, which gave such an action even in the case of
culpa [Damnum.]
Furtum was
either Manifestum or Nec
Manifestum. It was clearly manifestum when the
person was caught in the act; but in various other cases there was a difference
of opinion as to whether the furtum was
manifestum or not. Some were of opinion that it was
furtum manifestum so long as the thief was engaged in
carrying the thing to the place to which he designed to carry it; and others
maintained that it was furtum manifestum if the thief
was ever found with the stolen thing in his possession; but this opinion did not
prevail (Gaius, iii.184;
Inst. 4 1 §3). That which was not manifestum was
nec manifestum. Furtum conceptum
and oblatum were not species of theft, but species of
action. It was called conceptum furtum when a stolen
thing was sought and found, in the presence of witnesses, in the possession of a
person, who, though he might not be the thief, was liable to an action called
Furti Concepti. If a man gave you a stolen thing, in
order that it be found (conciperetur) in your
possession, rather than his, this was called Furtum Oblatum,
and you had an action Furti Oblati against him, even
if he was not the thief. There was also the action Prohibiti
Furti against him who prevented a person from searching for a stolen
thing (furtum); for the word
furtum signifies both the act of theft and the thing stolen.
The punishment for
furtum manifestum by the law of the Twelve Tables was
capitalis, that is, it affected the person's caput:
a freeman who had committed theft was flogged and consigned (addictus)
to the injured person; but whether the thief became a slave in consequence of
this addictio, or an adjudicatus,
was a matter in dispute among the ancient Romans. The Edict subsequently changed
the penalty into an actio quadrupli, both in the case
of a slave and a freedman. The penalty of the Twelve Tables, in the case of a
furtum nec manifestum, was duplum,
and this was retained in the Edict; for the law of the Twelve Tables had affixed
no penalty in this case, but merely enacted that if a man would search for
stolen property, he must be naked all but a cloth round his middle, and must
hold a dish in his hand. If he found any thing, it was
furtum manifestum. The absurdity of the law, says Gaius, is apparent; for
if a man would not let a person search in his ordinary dress, much less would he
allow him to search undressed, when the penalty would be so much more severe if
any thing was found (cf. Grimm, Von der Poesie in Recht, Zeitschrift,
vol. ii p91).
The actio furti
was given to all persons who had an interest in the preservation of the thing
stolen (cuius interest rem salvam esse), and the
owner of a thing, therefore, had not necessarily this action. A creditor might
have this action even against the owner of a thing pledged, if the owner was the
thief. A person to whom a thing was delivered in order to work upon it, as in
the case of clothes given to a tailor to mend, could bring this action against
the thief, and the owner could not, for the owner had an action (locati)
against the tailor. But if the tailor was not a solvent person, the owner had
his action against the thief, for in such case the owner had an interest in the
preservation of the thing. The rule was the same in the case of
commodatum [Commodatum].
But in a case of depositum, the depositee was under
no obligation for the safe custody of the thing (custodiam
praestare), and he was under no liability except in the case of
dolus: consequently, if the deposited thing was
stolen, the owner alone had the actio furti. A bona
fide purchaser might have the actio furti,
even if the thing had not been delivered to him, and he were consequently not
dominus.
An
impubes might commit theft (obligatur crimine furti),
if he was bordering on the age of puberty, and consequently of sufficient
capacity to understand what he was doing. If a person who was in the power of
another committed furtum, the
actio furti was against the latter.
The right of action died with the
offending person. If a peregrinus committed
furtum, he was made liable to an action by the
fiction of his being a Roman citizen
(Gaius, iv.37); and by the same fiction he had a right of action, if his
property was stolen.
He who took the property of another by
force was guilty of theft; but in the case of this delict, the praetor gave a
special action Vi bonorum raptorum. The origin of the
action Vi bonorum raptorum is referred by Cicero to
the time of the civil wars, when men had become accustomed to acts of violence
and to the use of arms against one another. Accordingly, the Edict was
originally directed against those who with bodies of armed men (hominibus
armatis coactisque) did injury to the property of another or carried it
off (quid aut rapuerint aut damni dederint). With the
establishment of order under the empire the prohibition against the use of arms
was less needed, and the word armatis is not
contained in the Edict as cited in the Digest
(47 8). The application of the Edict would however have still been very
limited, if it had been confined to cases where numbers were engaged in the
violence or robbery; and accordingly the jurists discovered that the Edict, when
properly understood, applied also to the case of a single person committing
damnum or carrying off property. Originally the Edict
comprehended both damnum and bona
rapta, and, indeed, damnum which was effected
vi hominibus armatis coactisque, was that kind of
violence to the repression of which the Edict was at first mainly directed.
Under the empire the reasons for this part of the Edict ceased, and thus we see
that in Ulpian's time the action was simply called "vi
bonorum raptorum." In the Institutes and Code the action applies to
robbery only, and there is no trace of the other part of the Edict. This
instructive illustration of the gradual adaptation, even of the Edictal law, to
circumstances is given by Savigny (Zeitschrift, vol. v Ueber Cicero Pro
Tullio und die Actio vi bonorum Raptorum), who has also given the masterly
emendation of
Dig. 7 tit.8 s2 § 7, by Heise.
The object of the
furti actio was to get a penalty as to the thing stolen:
the owner could recover it either by a vindicatio,
which was available against any possessor, whether the thief or another, or by a
condictio, which was available against the thief or
his heres, though he had not the possession
(Inst. 4 1 §19).
The strictness of the old law in the case
of actions of theft was gradually modified, as already shown. By the law of the
Twelve Tables, if theft (furtum) was committed in the
night, the thief, if caught in the act, might be killed: and he might also be
killed in the daytime, it he was caught in the act and defended himself with any
kind of a weapon (telum); if did not so defend
himself, he was whipped and became addictus, if a
freeman (as above stated) and if a slave, he was whipped and thrown down a
precipice.
The following are peculiar kinds of
actiones furti: (1) Actio de tigno
juncto, against a person who employed another person's timber in his
building; (2) Actio arborum furtim caesarum, against
a person who secretly cut wood on another person's ground; (3) Actio
furti adversus nautas et caupones, against nautae
and caupones [Exercitor],
who were liable for the acts of the men in their employment.
There were two cases in which a
bona fide possessor of another person's property
could not obtain the ownership by
usucapion; and one of them was the case of a res furtiva,
which was provided for in the Twelve Tables. The Roman Law as to
Furtum underwent changes, as appears from what has
been said; and the subject requires to be treated historically in order to be
fully understood. The work of Rein (Das Criminalrecht der Römer) contains
a complete view of the matter. "
Greek law treated the idea of theft
somewhat differently than did Roman Law, and most historians of legal history
say that Western legal systems can trace their lineage back to Greek Law.
From
http://www.libertystory.net/LSBIGSTORIESROMANPROPERTYLAW.htm
" Greek law treated slander, assault,
maiming, theft, slander, rape and murder as private wrongs, and prosecution was
up to the victim or survivors, although the government took some of any
resulting compensation.
In a number of
respects, the Greek legal system was still in the early stages. There weren’t
any lawyers. Rather, orators drafted speeches for defendants to deliver in
their behalf. And of course, there wasn’t any bill of rights; the Athenian
Assembly could vote to banish a citizen from the city without a trial, a
practice later known as a bill of attainder and banned in England and the United
States. Athens forced particular individuals to perform what was called a
“liturgy,” bearing the burdens of supposedly public services like maintaining
government war ships."
Here's another page on Roman law
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv2-76
======SNIP===========
My point is simple, and I am sure, many people will disagree with it. My
assertion is that,
it is a misinterpretation, a corruption, and a wrong idea to talk about
"stealing" as if it is synonymous
with copying. I go further and challenge "intellectual property" as a concept.
From my standpoint, one cannot steal any
service or product, if mere copying is done. Stealing
is deprivation of the use and value of the thing stolen, from the owner. Theft
of service, such as
bandwidth, or other non-tangible, I would accept as theft insofar as the
material or resource taken, is actually used, and not merely copied.
For a real world example, imagine that I
owned the Mona Lisa. I let you borrow it. You scan it with a drum scanner and
make a high quality copy, and print it out. You return the Mona Lisa to me
undamaged. Have you stolen my Mona Lisa? NO. Now, if you attempt to sell your
copy claiming that it is the original, that is not theft...it's FRAUD!
If I have an expensive, designer suit,
and you hire a tailor from Hong Kong to make a silk copy of it, and return it to
me in its original condition, is your action theft? NO.
But, to give equal time to the other
perspective on theft and intellectual property, I offer this link :
http://faculty.law.lsu.edu/stuartgreen/j-green2.pdf
a. Theft Law in Historical Perspective
The history of theft law reflects an “expansion on two axes”:
“the types of interference that constitute theft” and the
kinds of
property that can be stolen. At early common law, the means by
which theft could be effected were very limited.
The earliest offenses consisted of theft by force (robbery) and theft by
stealth (larceny). It was only later that English (and subsequently,
American) law
criminalized theft by breach of trust (embezzlement) and theft by
deception (common law cheat, larceny by deception, false pretenses,
and fraud).
Early theft law reflected a concern with preserving
social order and preventing violence. “In the traditional view,”
according to George Fletcher, “the thief upset the social order . . . by
violating the general sense of security and well-being of the
community.” “It was assumed . . . that the criminality of the deed
had to become manifest in a single brief moment of force or
stealth.” As theft law developed, the requirement of manifestness
waned. Takings that were outwardly innocent (such as false
pretenses and embezzlement) began to be criminalized. Physical
possession was no longer relevant. The criminal law shifted from a
focus on forceful or stealthy conduct to the intentional acquisition of
property by virtually any dishonest means.
Meanwhile, the definition of what constitutes “property” subject
to theft was experiencing a parallel expansion. Under early English
criminal law, the only kinds of property that could be stolen were
tangible and movable—i.e., goods and chattel, such as cash, jewelry,
furniture, vehicles, and other merchandise. Real property and
intangible property (e.g., a ride on a train, a room at a hotel, a deed to
land, stocks and securities) were not subject to larceny or other forms
of theft. According to one commentator:
The common law conception of property at the [time of
Blackstone] saw property as an absolute dominion over things.
Property was “that sole and despotic dominion which one man
claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total
exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe.” This
was a “physicalist” concept of property that required some external
thing to serve as the object of property rights . . . .
By the nineteenth century, however, the definition of what
constitutes “property” for purposes of theft law had begun to expand.
Old statutes were interpreted more broadly and new, specialized
statutes were enacted to deal with the misappropriation of intangible
property. For the first time, legal property rights were found in
business goodwill, and eventually in trademarks, trade secrets, and a
host of other kinds of intangible things.
Why did such changes occur?
According to Jerome Hall’s study
of the history of theft law:
Increase in the complexity of social and economic organization was
accompanied by the transformation of free goods (those existing in
nature independently of any human effort, and not appropriated by
(anyone) into economic goods. This transformation represented
effort and acquisition. Goods so far as thus acquired and
transformed become valuable and recognized as the “property” of
the individuals who got them or had them.
As intangible property such as licenses, franchises, and interests
in stock began to occupy an increasingly important place in the
economy, it was not surprising that society would look to the criminal
law as a means of protection.
|
My point is that the law itself became
perverted and wrong, when it started viewing things like "ideas" as property. To
me, this is as wrongheaded and a perversion of law, as making corporations
"legal persons". A corporation can be a legal person, but can never be a
natural person. To me, this whole move to the abstract, has ruined law,
and enabled the law to become an Alice in Wonderland field of study. Abstract
thinking is not always a good thing. Schizophrenics, for example, do a lot of
abstract thinking!
These "Intellectual Property" laws, to
me, make a mockery of the time honored , established ideas of what really is
theft.
The point of all this is that COPYING,
i.e. unauthorized copying, will NEVER be truly theft in my book, and it shows an
ignorance of the history of the concept of theft to ever assert it is!
~Code
CodeWarrior
awehr
independentm...
MP3user
