3 ms·
I didn't mean to get into the semantics of "theft". If you notice, I said "To me I'd consider that theft". What is significant, I believe, is the moral weight
by jeromec 16y ago
I didn't mean to get into the semantics of "theft". If you notice, I said "To me I'd consider that theft".
What is significant, I believe, is the moral weight of categorizing it as theft, rather than specific technical definitions and jurisdictions. I believe the same context is meant by the Obama administration's choice of words. We are at a time in history for which there is no precedent for all the things we are able to do. It's for this reason I bring up these arguments with an audience which seems to largely favor making free use of any product deemed fair game by their own justification.
- petercooper 16y agoOK, I appreciate your argument now :) It is cool for you to frame things within your own value system and I can't argue against your opinion, but it's a shame that the executive branch is being lax with the definitions of words that have special definitions in their realm.
- jeromec 16y agoI think they're trying to be very clear about how they view digital piracy. It's like Bush trumpeting "terrorists" or "axis of evil". You can apply a terrorist label broadly or narrowly to a person, but there is little doubt about how seriously the govt. might take action based on such a word. I think it's a similar thing here with the word "theft". If existing laws don't hold up to what they feel is fair and just, they may seek to craft new ones that do.