3 ms·
If nobody has exclusiveness afterwards, then it was just destroyed, not stolen.
by Peaker 16y ago
If nobody has exclusiveness afterwards, then it was just destroyed, not stolen.
- bonaldi 16y agoIf I steal your car and then destroy it, it's not right to say it was "just destroyed". In both cases the original possessor is deprived of something.
- Peaker 16y agoWell, you temporarily had my car then. In the case of exclusivity, it's not temporarily with the unauthorized copier. It is deprivation of exclusivity though, I agree.
- teamonkey 16y agoThe definition given earlier was: "A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it"
- Peaker 16y agoI am not sure we can treat an abstract notion like "exclusivity" as property. If we do, what if someone has exclusive knowledge of some algorithm, and then someone else discovers it too? Is he a thief?