3 ms·
Oh, then today I learned! I didn't realise they were different. Just looked it up in a "plain English dictionary of law" and the distinction seems subtle but im
by mdpye 5y ago
Oh, then today I learned! I didn't realise they were different. Just looked it up in a "plain English dictionary of law" and the distinction seems subtle but important. Rather than "with the intention of depriving the owner", the US one says "with the intention of converting it to their use", which seems broad enough to cover exploiting a copy, rather than the original (or only, in the physical realm...)
- native_samples 5y agoThe US definition seems more robust, as otherwise, I could somehow steal something you built (e.g. a farm) and then generously allow you to continue using it, perhaps for a fee. You would therefore not be deprived of it but I would still be the new owner or user. It seems unlikely this distinction would ever matter in a real court though.
- CRConrad 5y agoOh Idunno, it "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is"... > Rather than "with the intention of depriving the owner", the US one says "with the intention of converting it to their use", which seems broad enough to cover exploiting a copy ...or rather, on the meaning of "converting". I've always theought of that as "changing", i.e. "it used to be one thing, and now it's something else". But copying IP only adds a use of it, it doesn't fundamentally change it in this sense: it is still available for the original proprietor's use. Is that really "converted"? At least for the ordinary-English uuage of the word, I think it could be argued that it isn't. But then maybe this isn't just English; maybe the word "converting" also has some term-of-trade definition in that dictionary?