To make sure we're on the same page before I discuss your further points, my point was not the legality of the action, but the semantics (i.e. using specifically the word "theft", as opposed to piracy).
Except that Copyright Infringement has been a recognized form of piracy for over four hundred years,
Great, we agree. Piracy is piracy, as was even shown by the definition I provided.
and US courts have ruled more than once that depriving someone of the full set of rights and benefits of their property constitutes theft.
Interesting read, thank you. However the conclusion specifically states:
The use of an STC to obtain a governmental privilege is a property right under California law, and the protection of that property interest is not preempted by federal law; Rasmussen has stated valid claims for conversion and unjust enrichment.
While I yield that specifically "theft" may not be a wording used in legal texts, neither of these stated valid claims seem to be in line with the act of depriving something from the rightful owner, though I admit I'm not familiar with the term conversion in this legal context.
Making illegal copies of copyrighted material is a clear violation of the exclusive rights of copyright owners, laid out in 17 U.S. Code § 106.
I don't disagree.
---
Actually, writing the above, I believe I came to see your point. I believe it's that while the act of copyright infringement doesn't deprive the right holder of any tangible thing or return, it does deprive them of the rights to that work as they were denied their ability to decide the recipients of such work, correct? I can agree with this assessment and that in this case it can be constituted as theft. However, it may assume we're working in the context of the US legal system, as these definitions may vary. Admittedly, that seems to be the appropriate context for the article at hand.
I believe it's that while the act of copyright infringement doesn't deprive the right holder of any tangible thing or return, it does deprive them of the rights to that work as they were denied their ability to decide the recipients of such work, correct?
That's correct. The Iowa State Supreme Court ruled in the 1940s, and multiple Federal Courts have since agreed that:
"property is not the corporeal thing itself of which it is predicated, but certain rights in or over the thing"
This is why it's irrelevant that no physical item changes hands when it comes to pirating, and why the claims of lost revenue are accurate, even when people claim they wouldn't have bought the item anyway.
and why the claims of lost revenue are accurate, even when people claim they wouldn't have bought the item anyway.
Hmm, speaking of semantics again, I'd be more inclined to agree they're valid rather than accurate. I feel like accurate would also assume that the revenue would have actually been gained had the piracy not occurred, while valid simply agrees that theft occurred. This might be in the realm of nitpicking though, so maybe it's irrelevant. In the end, I agree with you on the point that software piracy does indeed constitute theft (at least under the current legal framework of the US, possibly in other countries as well).
I admit, it takes some getting used to, but once you understand the underlying concept, the semantics become clear. As a simple example:
You sell a video game for $20 a copy. That means that, for every copy, you are entitled to $20 in revenue. If someone downloads a copy illegally, that's $20 in lost revenue- it's money you are entitled to receive, but since they obtained an illegal copy, you don't get. Whether they would've ever bought a copy legally is irrelevant, they obtained a copy, and that means you should've received $20 in revenue. Since they didn't pay, that's lost revenue.
Yeah, ok, I'm seeing it. I still might not agree with it on principle, however I agree that it's valid reasoning and I'm happy we got these semantics figured out. It had previously been quite confusing to me how that argumentation had been arrived at, so seeing how it works & is valid is always nice!
Except that Copyright Infringement has been a recognized form of piracy for over four hundred years, and US courts have ruled more than once that depriving someone of the full set of rights and benefits of their property constitutes theft. Making illegal copies of copyrighted material is a clear violation of the exclusive rights of copyright owners, laid out in 17 U.S. Code § 106.
To make sure we're on the same page before I discuss your further points, my point was not the legality of the action, but the semantics (i.e. using specifically the word "theft", as opposed to piracy).
Great, we agree. Piracy is piracy, as was even shown by the definition I provided.
Interesting read, thank you. However the conclusion specifically states:
While I yield that specifically "theft" may not be a wording used in legal texts, neither of these stated valid claims seem to be in line with the act of depriving something from the rightful owner, though I admit I'm not familiar with the term conversion in this legal context.
I don't disagree.
---
Actually, writing the above, I believe I came to see your point. I believe it's that while the act of copyright infringement doesn't deprive the right holder of any tangible thing or return, it does deprive them of the rights to that work as they were denied their ability to decide the recipients of such work, correct? I can agree with this assessment and that in this case it can be constituted as theft. However, it may assume we're working in the context of the US legal system, as these definitions may vary. Admittedly, that seems to be the appropriate context for the article at hand.
That's correct. The Iowa State Supreme Court ruled in the 1940s, and multiple Federal Courts have since agreed that:
This is why it's irrelevant that no physical item changes hands when it comes to pirating, and why the claims of lost revenue are accurate, even when people claim they wouldn't have bought the item anyway.
Hmm, speaking of semantics again, I'd be more inclined to agree they're valid rather than accurate. I feel like accurate would also assume that the revenue would have actually been gained had the piracy not occurred, while valid simply agrees that theft occurred. This might be in the realm of nitpicking though, so maybe it's irrelevant. In the end, I agree with you on the point that software piracy does indeed constitute theft (at least under the current legal framework of the US, possibly in other countries as well).
I admit, it takes some getting used to, but once you understand the underlying concept, the semantics become clear. As a simple example:
You sell a video game for $20 a copy. That means that, for every copy, you are entitled to $20 in revenue. If someone downloads a copy illegally, that's $20 in lost revenue- it's money you are entitled to receive, but since they obtained an illegal copy, you don't get. Whether they would've ever bought a copy legally is irrelevant, they obtained a copy, and that means you should've received $20 in revenue. Since they didn't pay, that's lost revenue.
Yeah, ok, I'm seeing it. I still might not agree with it on principle, however I agree that it's valid reasoning and I'm happy we got these semantics figured out. It had previously been quite confusing to me how that argumentation had been arrived at, so seeing how it works & is valid is always nice!