6 ms·

It's not semantics. If that were the case theft laws would apply and they don't. Whether or not copyright infringement deprives copyright holders of a sale is

by rome 15y ago

It's not semantics. If that were the case theft laws would apply and they don't. Whether or not copyright infringement deprives copyright holders of a sale is very difficult to substantiate. Which is why courts decide it. Compare that to actual theft. If someone steals my phone, I can't use it anymore.

repsilat 15y ago
The legal definitions of words like "theft" and "ownership" and "property" are not the only definitions. There's obviously a widely held definition of "theft" that does include copyright infringement, whether it constitutes theft in a legal sense or not. (You can tell it's widespread because the argument that "infringement is not theft" keeps being made against all kinds of people.) You can argue that the usage of that term might be prejudicial, but calling it incorrect is at odds with the enlightened linguistic descriptivism we're all so enamoured of. :)
- sophacles 15y ago
  You can argue that the usage of that term might be prejudicial, but calling it incorrect is at odds with the enlightened linguistic descriptivism we're all so enamoured of. :) I get what you are saying, but this is a bit hypocritical. The very act of arguing and pushing for new terms, and trying to clarify language is in fact OK and even encouraged, even if one is a descriptivist. Even the most passionate "let language do what it will" person will agree that at some point you can't have every word collapsing into every idea.
  - repsilat 15y ago
    I think I agree, for the most part. I have no problem with people arguing that copyright shouldn't be called theft, but I do have a problem with people arguing that copyright can't be called theft. Perhaps the distinction is finer than the subject deserves. If I'm honest I think I prefer the "should not" argument to the "may not" one because the latter begs for shallow, deductive arguments from definitions instead of admitting a more thoughtful discussion.
- quicksilver03 15y ago
  If someone wants to sue me for theft, they'd better do it according to the legal definition of theft. If not, that's defamation.
rome 15y ago
I couldn't reply to repsilat for some reason. I agree mostly with your statement except that we are speaking about legal terms. It's important to make the distinction between theft and copyright infringement laws. They were made for very different purposes.

by rome 15y ago

repsilat 15y ago

The legal definitions of words like "theft" and "ownership" and "property" are not the only definitions. There's obviously a widely held definition of "theft" that does include copyright infringement, whether it constitutes theft in a legal sense or not. (You can tell it's widespread because the argument that "infringement is not theft" keeps being made against all kinds of people.) You can argue that the usage of that term might be prejudicial, but calling it incorrect is at odds with the enlightened linguistic descriptivism we're all so enamoured of. :)

sophacles 15y ago
You can argue that the usage of that term might be prejudicial, but calling it incorrect is at odds with the enlightened linguistic descriptivism we're all so enamoured of. :) I get what you are saying, but this is a bit hypocritical. The very act of arguing and pushing for new terms, and trying to clarify language is in fact OK and even encouraged, even if one is a descriptivist. Even the most passionate "let language do what it will" person will agree that at some point you can't have every word collapsing into every idea.
- repsilat 15y ago
  I think I agree, for the most part. I have no problem with people arguing that copyright shouldn't be called theft, but I do have a problem with people arguing that copyright can't be called theft. Perhaps the distinction is finer than the subject deserves. If I'm honest I think I prefer the "should not" argument to the "may not" one because the latter begs for shallow, deductive arguments from definitions instead of admitting a more thoughtful discussion.
quicksilver03 15y ago
If someone wants to sue me for theft, they'd better do it according to the legal definition of theft. If not, that's defamation.

rome 15y ago

I couldn't reply to repsilat for some reason. I agree mostly with your statement except that we are speaking about legal terms. It's important to make the distinction between theft and copyright infringement laws. They were made for very different purposes.