Picture yourself as a philosopher-king trying to write wise laws so that your people prosper. You are going to have to face the distinction between rival goods

Picture yourself as a philosopher-king trying to write wise laws so that your people prosper. You are going to have to face the distinction between rival goods (usually made of atoms) and non-rival goods (often made of bits). The difference is important in economics and hence to the prosperity of you people. You will end up with different laws, calling the misappropriation of rival goods theft and the misappropriation of certain non-rival goods copy-right infringement. Perhaps one adviser will argue that theft and copy-right infringement should both be criminal matters and attract the same penalties despite the differences. Perhaps another adviser will argue that theft and copy-right infringement should be criminal and civil matters respectively because of the differences. Perhaps a third will try to elide the differences between rival and non-rival goods by calling both misappropriations theft. You should kick the third adviser out of you council because the difference between rival goods and non-rival goods is central to the discussion. Burying the point by stretching the meaning of the word theft is an obstacle to a sensible discussion not a contribution.