Since When was Copyright Infringement 'Theft?'

David Heath
Sunday, 08 February 2009 23:58

IT Policy - Regulation

When a person takes the property of another person, with the intention of permanently depriving them of the use of it, that's "theft."  And in the eyes of the law, it's only theft after a conviction is recorded.

You'd think that an organisation dedicated to the preservation of the legal rights of copyright holders would have a better grasp of the law than they appear to do.

Allow me to quote from the website of AFACT (The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft): "The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft was established in 2004 to protect the film and television industry, retailers and movie fans from the adverse impact of copyright theft in Australia. AFACT works closely with industry, government and law enforcement authorities to achieve its aims."

This is the BIG LIE perpetrated again people all around the world.  Every organisation in the same ilk as AFACT maintains the same half-truth as if it were cast in stone.  They equate "copyright infringement" with "theft."  The word is even welded into their name.

Allow me to get all legalese on you.  According to section 72 of the Crimes Act in the State of Victoria, the "Basic definition of theft" is:

(1) A person steals if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

(2) A person who steals is guilty of theft; and "thief" shall be construed accordingly.

If you don't like that one, try going to Dictionary.com:

"Theft: The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.

"Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief."

I don't see any significant difference between the two.  Do you?

So, in the context of copyrighted material, what exactly is stolen that the owner is permanently deprived of?