Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to russotto
Re: Client information said by russotto: Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. I don't disagree with that. Copyright is a social moderation of otherwise common law property rights. If someone elects to transfer property using copyright (instead of, say, licensing to restrict what is otherwise a total transfer of property rights) it does become more complex. Infringement of copyright isn't covered under common law property rights (against theft). It's covered under copyright.
What makes this inapplicable to the bank is that they *never* released their internal memos and customer records under copyright. These continue to be governed by common law property rights. Even though copyright law applies to everything regardless of whether the author (corporation) affixes a copyright notice or distributes does not eliminate the author's (corporation's) non-statutory property interest.
In other words, it's apples and oranges. If I distribute a song under copyright (instead of individual licensed use) I can't consider my property to be governed outside of copyright's provisions. If I don't distribute my song under copyright, but a janitorial crew steals it from my office, I can consider it to be protected beyond copyright.
Mark |
