3 ms·

The dictionary doesn't seem to include your second definition, but regardless, you would NOT be preventing him from determining the use of his property, because

by paul 19y ago

The dictionary doesn't seem to include your second definition, but regardless, you would NOT be preventing him from determining the use of his property, because his property is the copyright, and he can still use it any way he likes.

mynameishere 19y ago
The dictionary is the wrong place to look for discussion on property. It's a complicated subject, and I'm trying to squeeze it into as few words as possible. If you want a citation: In a private property system, property rules are organized around the idea that various contested resources are assigned to the decisional authority of particular individuals (or families or firms) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/property/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/property/ ...In short, it is a matter of "use" (decision) rather than possession. A copyright indisputably is owned by all creators unless surrendered. But the copyright itself codifies control over a work, and thus is not that which is lost but that which proves loss in matters of IP violations.
- paul 19y ago
  I think I agree. My point is NOT that there is no loss when rights are infringed, clearly there is (The British, for example, lost control of India). However, 'theft' is the wrong word to describe this loss, and it leads to fundamental misunderstandings.
- Goladus 19y ago
  Intellectual property is arbitrary relative to, say, a hammer. Everyone agrees on what a hammer is, and that it is a "contested resource." The term "Intellectual Property" is very recent and we are still trying to reach an agreement on what it means. "Stealing a portion of an owner's exclusive copyrights," isn't generally the message being sent when someone talks about "stealing music" or "stealing software." I agree the dictionary is not the right place to look, however I disagree that legal lexicons are much more helpful. I think the issue here is the general metaphor used by regular people to communicate these ideas with each other.

by paul 19y ago

mynameishere 19y ago

The dictionary is the wrong place to look for discussion on property. It's a complicated subject, and I'm trying to squeeze it into as few words as possible. If you want a citation: In a private property system, property rules are organized around the idea that various contested resources are assigned to the decisional authority of particular individuals (or families or firms) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/property/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/property/ ...In short, it is a matter of "use" (decision) rather than possession. A copyright indisputably is owned by all creators unless surrendered. But the copyright itself codifies control over a work, and thus is not that which is lost but that which proves loss in matters of IP violations.

paul 19y ago
I think I agree. My point is NOT that there is no loss when rights are infringed, clearly there is (The British, for example, lost control of India). However, 'theft' is the wrong word to describe this loss, and it leads to fundamental misunderstandings.
Goladus 19y ago
Intellectual property is arbitrary relative to, say, a hammer. Everyone agrees on what a hammer is, and that it is a "contested resource." The term "Intellectual Property" is very recent and we are still trying to reach an agreement on what it means. "Stealing a portion of an owner's exclusive copyrights," isn't generally the message being sent when someone talks about "stealing music" or "stealing software." I agree the dictionary is not the right place to look, however I disagree that legal lexicons are much more helpful. I think the issue here is the general metaphor used by regular people to communicate these ideas with each other.