PDFS--Of the WotC Court Case

[Baron Opal]

I think his point [is] that there is a difference between unauthorized copying and theft of a physical object.

Condoning one of these acts does not require condoning the other.

Yes. I disagree with that sentiment. Previously, the object and the data were inextricably bound. Today that isn't the case, and you can obtain the data without the object. I don't see how that absolves a person from compensating the author.

 

[Stoat]

Also, I am also curious as to the following.

The award for one guilty party was $100,000.00. Does WoTC have to collect it all, is it handled by the court system, or can they at their own discretion reduce the amount?

Generally speaking, Le owes WotC $100,000. WotC is responsible for collecting that money. For example, they could foreclose on any property owned by the debtor, garnish his bank account or garnish his wages. WotC could decide to cut the guy a break and write off the debt.

Le represented to the Court that he is 19 years old, unemployed and a student. It seems unlikely that WotC will recover much of the judgment against him.

Please note that this post is not intended to provide legal advice to anybody, anywhere on any topic. I'm just killing some time on a Sunday morning.

 

[kenmarable]

So how does this thread forking thing work?

I'm guilty of if it, too, but I think this thread has gotten pretty far off track from news updates on the court case. JohnRTroy is doing a great job of posting the relevant legal documents. It's be nice to keep this thread focused on news updates and move the "is it right or wrong" discussion to a new thread.

 

[jgerman]

But that is not a meaningful difference. That copy of Ptolus is indeed still sitting in Borders, unpurchased. I still have all of the data because I down loaded it from a torrent.

Again, it is a meaningful difference. It's the reason the distinction is made, it doesn't get more meaningful than that.

If you steal a physical object from me you have deprived me of physical access to that book, where if you copy a file of mine you have not.

You're right that I haven't deprived someone of compensation for a physical object. I have deprived them of compensation for the data I now possess.

Why is it acceptible to deprive someone of compensation for creating data, a story, adventure, receipe or whatever, when there is no physical object accompaning it?

That's a separate argument.

Earlier you were trying to hand-wave away the difference. It's an important difference.

 

[AllisterH]

I think his point was not that there is a moral justification for unauthorized copying, but rather that there is a difference between unauthorized copying and theft of a physical object.

Condoning one of these acts does not require condoning the other.

Cheers, -- N

Isn't the reason why the person took the book WASN'T because of the physical production of the book but because of the ideas/words contained in the book?

 

[JohnRTroy]

So how does this thread forking thing work?

I'm guilty of if it, too, but I think this thread has gotten pretty far off track from news updates on the court case. JohnRTroy is doing a great job of posting the relevant legal documents. It's be nice to keep this thread focused on news updates and move the "is it right or wrong" discussion to a new thread.

Well, technically this thread was dead for a few months.

After the discussion ends, it will likely be dead for a while. I don't plan on checking again for at least a few more months--those documents cost pennies per page view and I think the earliest I'd bother checking again would be around the holidays (November/December). I might just end up making a new thread when I do find anything.

I just feel like occasional updates because, heck, you always hear lawsuits announced but you're less likely to hear about the outcomes.

 

[Baron Opal]

Again, it is a meaningful difference. It's the reason the distinction is made, it doesn't get more meaningful than that.

If you steal a physical object from me you have deprived me of physical access to that book, where if you copy a file of mine you have not.

The only reason there is a difference is due to current technology. To gain access to the data we no longer need to download the data in book form using a printing press, we can just access it electronicly as a file. Since it isn't in a physical form we need to redefine the "theft" as "copyright infringement" since the data has been distributed without compensation without the loss of a physical medium. It is important only in its novelty and by asking the questions of how do we control and regulate the sale of information.

...you were trying to hand-wave away the difference. It's an important difference.

You're right in that I don't see it as a meaningful difference. The end result is that the author isn't compensated for his effort. That is the crux of my argument. Again I ask -

Why is it acceptible to deprive someone of compensation for creating data, a story, adventure, receipe or whatever, when there is no physical object accompaning it?

 

[malraux]

Why is it acceptible to deprive someone of compensation for creating data, a story, adventure, receipe or whatever, when there is no physical object accompaning it?

Nitpick, recipes are not copyrightable.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

But that is not a meaningful difference. That copy of Ptolus is indeed still sitting in Borders, unpurchased. I still have all of the data because I down loaded it from a torrent. You're right that I haven't deprived someone of compensation for a physical object. I have deprived them of compensation for the data I now possess.

Why is it acceptible to deprive someone of compensation for creating data, a story, adventure, receipe or whatever, when there is no physical object accompaning it?

If it is not acceptable to let uncreative work go unrewarded, then the solution does not have to be to tie creative work to monopoly rents in the form of copyright. Only in a specific kind of state imposed systematic deviation from free exchange is downloading the content from a book equivalent to denying compensation to a creative artist. Now we shouldn't ignore that this is the current context in which most of us live, but we also shouldn't ignore that we can change the context rather than simply changing our behaviour within the context.

 

[jgerman]

The only reason there is a difference is due to current technology. To gain access to the data we no longer need to download the data in book form using a printing press, we can just access it electronicly as a file. Since it isn't in a physical form we need to redefine the "theft" as "copyright infringement" since the data has been distributed without compensation without the loss of a physical medium. It is important only in its novelty and by asking the questions of how do we control and regulate the sale of information.

Yes, technology has changed the game as it tends to do. We're not redefining theft as copyright infringement. Theft still exists in it's original intuitive form. The intuitive notion of theft DOES NOT work for copyright infringement. It's not "only important in novelty".

You're right in that I don't see it as a meaningful difference. The end result is that the author isn't compensated for his effort. That is the crux of my argument. Again I ask -

Why is it acceptible to deprive someone of compensation for creating data, a story, adventure, receipe or whatever, when there is no physical object accompaning it?

And again I tell you: that is a different question. That may be the crux of your argument, but one of the premises: that there is no difference between copyright infringement and theft, is false.

There is a major difference: in the only arena that counts.. legally, and legally there is a penalty for copyright infringement so your question doesn't make any sense.

You may not choose to recognize the difference, but the law does.