5 ms·
The argument is that for something to be "stolen" it has to be missing afterwards. An unauthorized copy is copyright infringement, legally speaking, not theft.
by diffeomorphism 6y ago
The argument is that for something to be "stolen" it has to be missing afterwards. An unauthorized copy is copyright infringement, legally speaking, not theft.
Words mean something and there is a reason why right holders tried to coin this (pillaging, murdering) piracy to give it a bad connotation. Then the various "pirate parties" said if you want to call large swaths of the population pirates, then we will be taking that word from you (somewhat similar to pride movements).
- Shared404 6y agoNo contest. You've convinced me. For the record, I have little to no issue with "unauthorized copies", for the most part. I just disagreed with some of the phrasing.
- HatchedLake721 6y agoInteresting argument. Secrets can be stolen, but they're not missing after. Spies steal secrets, not copyright infringement them :)
- throwaway2048 6y agoEspionage is also not theft in a legal sense
- fsflover 6y ago> Secrets can be stolen, but they're not missing after. You technically lose the secret in this case, since it's not a secret anymore.
- kube-system 6y ago> The argument is that for something to be "stolen" it has to be missing afterwards. ...assuming the word has only one usage -- which it does not. The word can also be correctly used to describe an act of appropriation. "Stolen" is not necessarily a synonym of "theft"
- fsflover 6y ago> ...assuming the word has only one usage -- which it does not. To me it sounds like propaganda against information sharing, by coining negative words, like "piracy": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#%22Piracy%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#%22Pira...