Re: The challenge of serving *EVERYONE* (was RE: Mozilla blog: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users)

On Fri, 2014-05-16 at 12:09 -0700, John Foliot wrote:
> cobaco wrote:

> > Copying is NOT theft, if you steal something the other person doesn't
> > have it anymore, if you copy it you now both have one.
> > That's a fundamentally and totally different dynamic.

> If you copy something of mine with my permission, then you now have a copy;
> I shared it with you. (My stuff, my choice)
> 
> If you copy something of mine without my permission, then I have not shared
> it with you freely, you have taken it - that's stealing. (My stuff, your
> choice)

This is not true.  Copying something without permission is not taking.
Taking implies physical removal.  The reason it's a crime to take
physical objects without permission is because it denies the original
possessor the use of the taken object.  When copying something, the
original possessor still has use of the original.

Here is the definition of "take" from Webster's 1913 dictionary.  Note
the continuing theme of denying the original possessor the use of what
is taken:

     1. In an active sense; To lay hold of; to seize with the
        hands, or otherwise; to grasp; to get into one's hold or
        possession; to procure; to seize and carry away; to
        convey. Hence, specifically: 
        [1913 Webster]
        (a) To obtain possession of by force or artifice; to get
            the custody or control of; to reduce into subjection
            to one's power or will; to capture; to seize; to make
            prisoner; as, to take an army, a city, or a ship;
            also, to come upon or befall; to fasten on; to attack;
            to seize; -- said of a disease, misfortune, or the
            like.
            [1913 Webster]


So, when one copies something of yours without permission, one does not
"take" it.  In fact, this act that we're discussing is quite a new
concept and the English language hasn't really caught up.  The most
precise was of describing it is "copying without permission".  If it's a
work covered by copyright then "infringing" could be appropriate.

Neither "take" nor "steal" nor "thieve" are appropriate words for this
act.


> If I go to your house, and you offer me a steak dinner, then you have shared
> your food with me. (Your stuff, your choice)
> 
> If I go to your house and take steaks from your freezer without your
> permission, is that sharing? No, it is theft. (Your stuff, my choice)

This is an example where the original possessor is denied use of
something.  The original possessor is not denied use of something when
the thing is only copied without permission.


> The fact that making digital copies is easy, and with no loss of fidelity,
> does not automatically determine that all digital materials are free to copy
> without permission.

This is a straw man; I don't believe anybody has tried to argue that the
negligible cost of digital copying implies copyright does not apply to
digital materials.  I don't think anybody here is that unaware of the
law.

That said, there is plenty of room to argue that negligible copying cost
*should* except digital content from copying restrictions.  But that's
an argument about copyright law, not the use of DRM.

-- 
Bob Ham <rah@settrans.net>

for (;;) { ++pancakes; }