[nzlug] Re: NZLUG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 7

[Damian Turner-Steele]

>
> From: Simon Bridge <simonbridge at ihug.co.nz>
>
> On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 12:24 +1300, Robert Coup wrote:
>
> >
> > And to spell it out really clearly for an explaining-to-friends point of
> > view
> > Copyright infringement and theft aren't the same because:
> > When I steal your car, you can't use it anymore.
> So if I take your car and return it before you know it's gone or need to
> use it, that isn't theft? If I fill the tank, and it was only half-full
> when I took it, did I do you a favour?
>
> > When I copy your CD, you can still use it, and so can I.
> >
> Though my ability to make money off it could be diminished - depending.
> For one thing, you didn't pay for it.
>
> > (I'm not saying IP is bad or copyright infringement is good - just
> pointing
> > out that calling it theft is very misleading)
> Calling it IP is also misleading. Do you mean patents, copyright or
> trademarks?


To be successfully prosecuted for theft it has to shown that you intended to
permanently deprive the rightful owner of whatever it is that you stole.

"So if I take your car and return it before you know it's gone or need to
use it, that isn't theft? If I fill the tank, and it was only half-full
when I took it, did I do you a favour?"

No you committed the offence of taking without consent which is a lesser
crime. If you returned it with extra fuel you might get a reduced sentence
(do I need irony tags here).

"Though my ability to make money off it could be diminished - depending.
For one thing, you didn't pay for it."

I may not have paid for it but surely the burden of proof requires that it
is shown that I would have paid for it. The fact that I do from time to time
buy DVD movies and music Cd's demonstrates that i am happy to pay for
content and so, it follows that even if I have a copied whatever it cannot
be shown that I won't in future buy an original for all those lovely
"extras".