"Help out a slow guy by explaining why "copyright infringement" by an individual isn't theft, while copyright infringement by a corporation is theft."
..and immediately started talking about "Copyright infringement by an individual", I just naturally assumed you were addressing my request. Silly me.
T"ry to clarify what you're" answering. "It'll be easier."
As for this: "It deprives them because if the copyrights have transferred, then those people have lost the rights to sell, modify, remix, re-record, etc. their own work."
Make up your mind. If copyright doesn't legally prevent individuals copying files, then it doesn't prevent creators copying their files. If an assigned copyright prevents a creator copying the files, then it prevents other nonholders of the copyright copying the files. Either copyright exists, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways. Unless your meds have worn off.
Moreover, if the "copyright" itself -- not the work -- was stolen as you and MrWilson would have it, then the copyright reassignment by definition is invalid, and the invalid reassignment confers no privilege on the thief.
MrWilson wrote: "Musicians who have had their copyrights stolen by corporations are victims of theft." Which prompted me to ask: "Help out a slow guy by explaining why "copyright infringement" by an individual isn't theft, while copyright infringement by a corporation is theft."
Whereupon PaulT disingenuously pretends that I asked something else.
"Copyright" is a government created privilege that protects the fair chance of a creator to make a buck. Like it or not, and I figure you don't -- nor do I actually -- in our current system, "copyright" is a legal doctrine which assumes that unauthorized copying does deprive the copyright holder. Therefore, in the existing system, something "is lost".
If, as you assert, "copyright" does not protect against unauthorized copying, then "copyright" is an intangible that can't be taken physically. You are in the position of saying that the word "copyright" only means something when you want it to mean something, then accusing meof playin g games with semantics. Why not "Just use the words that apply"?
You'll note that in my examples I very specifically addressed whether copies or pysical originals were taken in each scenario. I wasn't speaking of a legal fiction, a government-provided privilege that protects the ownership of data being taken; I spoke of the data being taken of copied.
Back to my original question, paraphrased for the logic-impaired. Why is unauthorized copying by an individual not theft if the same act by a corporation is theft? How does MrWilson's "copyrights stolen by corporations" deprive the artists of the data/information/songs/books/etc they still have? How does a corporation steal a an intangible government-provided privilege; a forged contract assigning the rights to the company? That's a clear criminal violation -- fraud -- right there, as is a company defrauding others of money be lying and claiming to own a copyright it doesn't possess.
For Bog's sake, if the information is an intangible that isn't lessened, nor the creator deprived, by copying, then how is a gov-granted monopoly on that very data any more tangible lessened by "taking".
Oddly enough, MrWilson, I didn't use the terms " copyright rape" or "copyright murder"; you did. Now, I might call that technique a "strawman argument", but I'm sure you'd come up with something that makes you sound like less of an @ss. Similarly, I didn't use the term "pirate" as you did.
I do note that you admit that this unauthorized use constitutes a crime (" a description of the crimes committed "). Even though you don't want to call it theft. Get used it. You may -- as even I do -- think the current system of copyright law is wrong. But... it is the law for now. A great many people whose works have been used without authorization do colloquially refer to this as theft, since it often does (contrary to "information wants to be free" types') negatively impact sales.* "Colloquial" is the key here. Possibly it escaped your notice that musicweek.com is not a court, and their article was not a formal legal ruling from the bench.
Interestingly, in the US, copyright infringement has formally been considered theft, as opposed to mere colloquial usage. Public Law 113-52 (17 USC § 504) includes language that implemented... ...wait for it... the Digital THEFT Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999 (emphasis added-cb).
"Musicians who have had their copyrights stolen by corporations are victims of theft. The public who has had its public domain works stolen by Congress and their masters in those corporations are victims of theft. As Nina would say, "copying is not theft"
Now you've confused me. Help out a slow guy by explaining why "copyright infringement" by an individual isn't theft, while copyright infringement by a corporation is theft. Are you suggesting that the record companies are breaking into musicians' houses at night at making off with all their sheet music and lyrics, leaving no copies behind? Did all those works that were in public domain magically evaporate (some sort of scifi-ish retroactive temporal anomaly) from the universe when Congress changed the rules? And if Congress were to abolish copyrights would currently protected works in the physical hands of artists everywhere somehow vanish and reappear in in someone else's hands, or would such legislation only affect... copying which "as Nina would say, 'copying is not theft.'"?
Why is something affecting copies sometimes "theft" and sometimes not?
--- * I'm all for reforming, or even eliminating, the current copyright system. I await a reasonable explanation of what incentive creators will have to write books, songs, or otherwise create new works in a "the words aren't yours/info wants to be free" (two phrases I heard many times from people who didn't think they should even kick in a small voluntary donation for my books) scenario. When I get that explanation, maybe I'll dust off the next two manuscripts in my series and publish them.
...since they only steal money from banks, rather than the actual buildings?
C'mon, complaining about "copyright thief" in a very abbreviated headline that indicates topic and not specific details is nitpicking. They used the term to indicate a general class of theft, not that a copyright was stolen.
Not theft. Your babble would be more entertaining, and just possibly mildly useful, if you knew WTF you're talking about. The USPS page doesn't cite the actual law, but the applicable US Code title and section is:
Specifically: "(b) Any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, may be treated as a gift by the recipient, who shall have the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender. All such merchandise shall have attached to it a clear and conspicuous statement informing the recipient that he may treat the merchandise as a gift to him and has the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender."
The US Code " is what applies equally to all people [in the US], and you should learn it".
In related news, regulators are moving to ban water testing, soil pH testing, and Radio Shack multimeters on the grounds that stupid effing regulators are incapable of properly understandin g test results. Meanwhile the Department of Education is evaluating the possible effects on Common Core testing, as they are unsure which group they should consider idiots: students, teachers, parents, or themselves.
Digression: Do I understand correctly that K-man calls himself "Dr. Chaps", a monicker which -- given the homosexuality subcontext -- immediately brought to mind the Village People's gay, chaps-clad cowboy?
I just love the excuse that, "We can't tell you what or how we do what we do because that would hurt what or how we do what we claim to do;" whether it's the TSA hiding their SPOT program, or the NSA and its spying, or...[insert agency/clusterf-k ad infinitum]... I carry a handgun for personal defense. The fact that ballistics data on the .45ACP cartridge has been widely published for a century doesn't seem to be hampering its effectiveness.
But then, I'm concerned with personal security. They are concerned with their job security if they ever admit how screwed up and useless they are. Which, considering how tough it is to eliminate a federal program, just demonstrates how paranoid they are.