4 ms·

> What word would you use instead? Infringing. (duh)

by jsizz 11y ago

smt88 11y ago
I can't tell if you're joking, but "infringe" means "to violate" which implies that there is a law or agreement that's being broken. That makes it sound like you agree with the idea that this is stealing.
- lordCarbonFiber 11y ago
  The law you're looking for is ~copyright~. The fact that the work isn't actually stolen is the keystone in how you can take the copyright case to trial. It's pretty hard to prove infringement if you have no record of the original work (ie it's been stolen).
- gtremper 11y ago
  Stealing means the victim doesn't have the stolen item anymore.
- jsizz 11y ago
  I absolutely do not agree with the idea that this is stealing. How can it be stealing, when the owner still has the thing that was supposedly stolen? Different circumstances, different terminology. The correct terminology (see US Title 17 or CDPA 1988) is "infringing". Anyone who insists on using the word "stolen" is signalling their ignorance of the first, most basic fact of copyright law.
  - smt88 11y ago
    In my example, the specific crime may not have been stealing, but there was revenue stolen.
    - rustynails 11y ago
      The revenue was lost. Look at legal web sites. There is a specific vocabulary. The language you are using is from what I call "Mcadonalds Journalism" sites who have a vested interest in vilifying anyone who infringes. By politicising the language, these sites use emotive language to sway your views. I'm sure these are articles on this. It's similar to yellow journalism.
    - dsp1234 11y ago
      but there was revenue stolen. 1.) If the item is being given away for free, there can still be infringement. 2.) If a person would never purchase an item at the available price (due to the law of supply and demand for example), that person might still infringe. No revenue was lost or gained since the transaction would never have completed at the existing price. In either of those cases, no revenue was "stolen", but infringement still occurred. These are some of the many reasons that stealing isn't a good way to describe copyright infringement.
    - mc808 11y ago
      So it is "stealing" to produce a superior, cheaper, but otherwise virtually identical product or service that sells better and displaces a competitor's revenue? Strange, I thought that was the whole basis of market economics.
- PeterisP 11y ago
  There are all kinds of violations that are not stealing. If I point a gun to your face and take your money, that's a law being broken, but taking that money is not stealing, it's robbery. If I threaten to expose some dirty secrets and demand money or things from you, that's blackmail but not stealing. If I take your textual content and re-publish it under my own name, then that's an infringing use but again, not stealing.

> What word would you use instead? Infringing. (duh)

by jsizz 11y ago

> What word would you use instead? Infringing. (duh)

smt88 11y ago

I can't tell if you're joking, but "infringe" means "to violate" which implies that there is a law or agreement that's being broken. That makes it sound like you agree with the idea that this is stealing.

lordCarbonFiber 11y ago
The law you're looking for is ~copyright~. The fact that the work isn't actually stolen is the keystone in how you can take the copyright case to trial. It's pretty hard to prove infringement if you have no record of the original work (ie it's been stolen).
gtremper 11y ago
Stealing means the victim doesn't have the stolen item anymore.
jsizz 11y ago
I absolutely do not agree with the idea that this is stealing. How can it be stealing, when the owner still has the thing that was supposedly stolen? Different circumstances, different terminology. The correct terminology (see US Title 17 or CDPA 1988) is "infringing". Anyone who insists on using the word "stolen" is signalling their ignorance of the first, most basic fact of copyright law.
- smt88 11y ago
  In my example, the specific crime may not have been stealing, but there was revenue stolen.
  - rustynails 11y ago
    The revenue was lost. Look at legal web sites. There is a specific vocabulary. The language you are using is from what I call "Mcadonalds Journalism" sites who have a vested interest in vilifying anyone who infringes. By politicising the language, these sites use emotive language to sway your views. I'm sure these are articles on this. It's similar to yellow journalism.
  - dsp1234 11y ago
    but there was revenue stolen. 1.) If the item is being given away for free, there can still be infringement. 2.) If a person would never purchase an item at the available price (due to the law of supply and demand for example), that person might still infringe. No revenue was lost or gained since the transaction would never have completed at the existing price. In either of those cases, no revenue was "stolen", but infringement still occurred. These are some of the many reasons that stealing isn't a good way to describe copyright infringement.
  - mc808 11y ago
    So it is "stealing" to produce a superior, cheaper, but otherwise virtually identical product or service that sells better and displaces a competitor's revenue? Strange, I thought that was the whole basis of market economics.
PeterisP 11y ago
There are all kinds of violations that are not stealing. If I point a gun to your face and take your money, that's a law being broken, but taking that money is not stealing, it's robbery. If I threaten to expose some dirty secrets and demand money or things from you, that's blackmail but not stealing. If I take your textual content and re-publish it under my own name, then that's an infringing use but again, not stealing.