[OSM-legal-talk] (Not) "Removing" data

[Simon Ward]

On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 05:29:36PM +0200, Michael Collinson wrote:
> A common mantra is that copyright does not mean much unless exerted.
> Views? Precedents?

Well, you can steal my food, and if you’re careful I might not notice
the odd loaf of bread go missing.  I might notice, and attribute it to
something else (flat mate was hungry), or I might know it was you and
look the other way (maybe until it happens again).  Does that mean it is
right (legal or moral) to steal my food?

Copyright is automatic, and exclusive to the owner. The owner may give
certain permissions to use and reproduce the work, but outside of those
they still have the exclusive rights.  If I haven’t been given
permission to re‐license a work then I might be able to get away with it
if the owner doesn’t notice but I have no legal right to do it.

Note: I’ve compared copyright infringement to theft, and I apologise.
When you copy, you don’t take anything tangible away from the owner¹;
when you steal, you deprive the owner of something they once had.

¹You may reduce their potential return from the work, and therefore their
incentive to produce works, which is a reason for copyright to exist.

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20100809/e537b7a8/attachment.pgp>