[bryans]

> Possession of copyrighted material in itself is not illegal.

The means of procurement matters. If they are in possession of copyrighted material because someone without the proper rights gave it to them illegally, then the possession itself is also illegal. It's illegal to own knowingly stolen property in all 50 US states and most countries, and while we could argue to the end of days about whether copying a file truly qualifies as stealing, the legal precedents are very clear on the matter.

[dragonwriter]

> If they are in possession of copyrighted material because someone without the proper rights gave it to them illegally, then the possession itself is also illegal.

No, they aren’t.

> It's illegal to own knowingly stolen property in all 50 US states

While copyright violation is often metaphorically (or hyperbolicly) referred to as stealing, copyright violation isn't theft and a copy created in violation of copyright is not stolen property. The essencd of theft lies in deprivation of the owner of the use of the good, not mere trespass to their right to exclude others.

[bryans]

> No, they aren’t.

Very convincing argument. Also, that's maybe the one part of this discussion that can't be debated. Possession of illegally obtained property, intellectual or otherwise, is illegal. Always has been, always will be. It's bizarre for you to be claiming otherwise.

> While copyright violation is often metaphorically (or hyperbolicly) referred to as stealing [...]

You are making a pedantic argument about the term "stealing," which is annoyingly pointless given the rest of that sentence (which you conveniently didn't quote) acknowledges the debate about the term. However, there's no debate to be had. The courts have clarified that violating intellectual property is still a denial of owed compensation (theft), but instead prefer the term "infringe" to make clear the distinction between violating physical rights (criminal) and violating intellectual rights (civil).

It's still a violation of copyright to be in possession of works obtained via illegal reproduction. You have zero fair use protections for illegally reproduced content. You are still breaking the law. You are still stealing via denial of compensation. The courts have already clarified all of this. Your pedantry doesn't change any of that.

[dragonwriter]

> Also, that's maybe the one part of this discussion that can't be debated.

You are correct; it is absolutely, undebatably not illegal, in and of itself, to own a copy made in violation of a copyrightholder’s rights under US law.

If you think it is, here’s what you need to do: cite the law. In American law, everything not explicitly forbidden is permitted, so if mere possession of material made in violation of copyright is, as you claim, illegal, you will be able to find a provision of law that actually says that. (You won't, because its not.)

Now, there are important legal issues that effect possessors of illegally made copies—if its something like computer software where copying is part of normal use and implicitly or explicitly licebmnsed for lawful copies, you can’t make that kind of use of your illegal copy without violating the copyright holder’s exclusive right to make copies because you have no license for that copying. And you don’t have first sale rights in your illegal copy even if you own the physical medium in which it is embodied. And so on and so on.

But possession itself is not illegal.

> The courts have clarified that violating intellectual property is still a denial of owed compensation (theft),

That's not what theft is.

> but instead prefer the term "infringe" to make clear the distinction between violating physical rights (criminal) and violating intellectual rights (civil).

This is nonsense, and absolutely not something courts have “clarified” (or something anyone with even a passing familiarity with the relevant law could say with a straight face) since IP (including copyright) violations can be criminal as well as civil (see 17 USC § 506) and physical (real and personal) property rights violations, like IP, have sets of civil violations that generally are of broader coverage than the more narrow crimes (e.g., the torts of trespass, trespass to chattels, and conversion).

> It's still a violation of copyright to be in possession of works obtained via illegal reproduction.

No, its not: Title 17 lists the exclusove rights associated with copyright, enumerates violations, and provides remedies, and possession of copies is not an exclusive right in copyright, possession of unlicensed copies is not a violation (though it may be important evidence related to actual violations), and, consequently, there is no legal remedy for such possession.

> You have zero fair use protections for illegally reproduced content.

That's a whole different issue.

[beej71]

Is possession of a pirated work the same as possession of stolen property, legally?

[bryans]

Absolutely it is. There is two centuries of precedence marking copyrighted works as property. It's literally called intellectual property. The courts have only made clarification that intellectual property doesn't violate physical property theft laws (denying ownership), but instead intellectual property theft laws (denying compensation).

[beej71]

But "possession of stolen property" is a specific criminal charge that doesn't typically have to do with copyright (being more to do with, say, bicycles). I can't find any example of "possession of stolen property" charges being brought against a copyright violator, but it's a hard thing to Google.