> Mike Lorrey writes:
> > Lee, Lee, Lee, it is rather obvious to anybody who isn't being purposely
> > disengenuous that taking something offered for sale without paying for
> > it is theft.
> I think it is necessary in addition for there to be a general social
> recognition that the seller have a legitimate property right in that
> which is offered for sale. You might put a sign on your front yard
> saying "Breathe my air! Only $1 per lungful!" and I may take what is
> offered for sale without paying for it, but few would agree that I
> have committed theft.
> In the case of intellectual property, then, the question is whether there
> is recognition of a property right in that which is offered for sale.
> When someone takes your property, that is theft. But ownership of
> intellectual property differs from that of regular property, which is why
> additional statutes were needed to cover it. Copying your data doesn't
> match the common understanding of theft because there is no recognition of
> a conventional property right as there is with ordinary physical objects.
As I recall, this whole class of law is called 'intellectual property',
ergo, it is regarded as a property right.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:16 MDT