[UFO Chicago] Intellectual property

[Neil R. Ormos]

Nick Moffitt wrote:

> begin  Neil R. Ormos  quotation:

>> Of course, that assumes that there's an "exchange" of
>> two ideas, as opposed to the usual case in which you
>> have an idea and I steal the idea without giving you
>> something in return.  You still have your idea, but if
>> you didn't give it to me voluntarily, I've been unjustly
>> enriched.

> from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
> 
> Theft \Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e,
>  [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See {Thief}.]
>   1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious
>   taking and removing of personal property, with an intent
>   to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
> 
> Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the
>  owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious;
>  every part of the property stolen must be removed,
>  however slightly, from its former position; and it must
>  be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of
>  the thief. See {Larceny}, and the Note under {Robbery}.
> 
> Note "complete possession of the thief".

> Thus, notions of theft cannot be attributed to ideas.
> Come up with another term if you like.  Come up with other
> ways to explain injustice, but do NOT call it theft.

Bull-oney!

It's bad enough to be pedantic, but it's especially
obnoxious to be pedantic when you're also wrong.

First, I never used the word "theft".  I used the word
"steal".  And not for its strict legal definition
(obviously!), but for the vernacular meaning that everyone
on this list, and elsewhere, derives when others refer to
the concept of stealing ideas.  English is a living
language; words are defined through usage and take on the
meanings folks understand them to mean.  So although you may
have some kind of misguided, parochial problem with the use
of property terms to refer to ideas, the rest of the
English-speaking world understands exactly what I meant.
Your nit-picking might have been justified had I referred to
such common-law actions as conversion, replevin, or trespass
to chattel, which are legal terms of art having no
vernacular application, but I didn't.

Second, there are many dictionaries, and many other
authoritative sources, some of which even take into account
changes in in the language since 1913.  Several of these
support the use of "steal" in the general sense of depriving
another without authorization.  E.g.:
 --'To get or effect surreptitiously or artfully: steal a kiss;'
 --'To gain by insinuating arts or covert means.'
 --'take without the owner's consent; "Someone stole my wallet
    on the train"; "This author stole entire paragraphs from 
    my dissertation"' 
(See, you're not the only one who can use dictionary.com.)
Moreover, when the thing at issue is an idea or some other
result of creative effort, people frequently conflate the
idea with the ability to extract commercial value from it.
Thus, people often now refer to as "stealing" the
unauthorized extraction of commercial value from another's
idea or creative effort, even if the author retains the
original thought or copy.

Third, the notion that "ideas" or creative output are
somehow fundamentally inconsistent with the application of
property concepts is simply wrong.  There are many
reasonable analogies that can be drawn between intellectual
property and real/personal property.  For example, the
essence of a possessory interest in property is the right to
exclude others (at least in most common-law jurisdictions).
For real estate and chattel property, the relevant exclusion
is presence and use.  For intellectual property, the
relevant exclusion may well be commercialization.

> Most people I run into say "copyright violation is theft
> because copyright is about property", and then they say
> "copyright is about property because violation is theft".
> In fact, copyright is a *limited monopoly*, and is not
> designed to implement property law.  It's more like a
> public subsidy, such as NEA funding.

Nonsense.  Whether or not copyright is a limited monopoly
has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is designed to
implement property law.  Copyright, at least in the U.S., is
what Congress and the courts say it is, and might reasonably
be considered a new form of property law.  So what?
Ownership of real property could just as well be considered
a monopoly on the use of the land.  Again, so what?  This
focus on categorizing appears to lack relevance.

> Using terms like "property" and "stealing" are colorful
> metaphors that distract discussion away from the issues at
> hand.

I suppose the last resort of the misinformed pedant is to
criticize an earlier post by reciting an 89-year-old
dictionary definition of a word that was never used in the
earlier post, and then to accuse the original poster of
distracting "discussion away from the issues at hand".  What
an amazing feat of hypocrisy!