[Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again

[Phil Nash]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 6:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again


> >
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>
>> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 4:36 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again
>>
>>
>>>> On 07/09/2013 08:37 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>>>>> How is that not theft that we are facilitating?
>>>>
>>>> Because "theft", is to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner
>>>> of
>>>> it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the
>>>> thing or of his property or interest in it.
>>>>
>>>> In some jurisdiction, linking to sites that play fast and loose with
>>>> Copyright /may/, in certain circumstances, be facilitating copyright
>>>> infringement.  It certainly isn't "theft".
>>>>
>>>> (I am not saying the latter is okay -- but that calling copyright
>>>> infringement "theft" is inflammatory rhetoric and intellectually
>>>> dishonest, at best).
>>>>
>>>> -- Marc
>>>
>>> Interesting notion that plain talk is "inflammatory" and "dishonest."
>>> How
>>> is deliberate copyright infringement is not theft? Why are we the
>>> pirates' little helpers?
>>>
>>> Fred
>>
>> I'm tired of having this argument in uk.legal, and I don't want to go
>> through it all again here. The essence of theft is that property
>> belonging
>> to another is appropriated, i.e. the rights of the owner have been
>> assumed
>> by someone else. In the case of a copyright, however many illicit copies
>> are
>> made, the copyright remains intact and it would be illogical to say
>> otherwise, because then there would come a number of copies beyond which
>> the
>> copyright would cease to exist, which is not the case. And that's without
>> arguing the point of whether it is possible to form an intention to
>> permanently deprive the owner of his copyright when doing so is in fact
>> and
>> in law impossible.
>
> If you post a creative work on a website the purpose which is to share
> files you have assumed the rights of the owner, one of which is to
> determine the conditions which must be met to view or listen to the work.
> The owner can give his work away to the world but not third parties.
>
> Fred
>
What are you saying has been stolen here? The work itself, the copy of it, 
or the copyright in the work?
There are serious problems in trying to bend the law of theft to any of 
them.