5 ms·
Minor nitpick, but he was not stealing, he was infringing copyrights. To "steal" is to take another's rivalrous property without permission, such that you now
by csallen 2y ago
Minor nitpick, but he was not stealing, he was infringing copyrights.
To "steal" is to take another's rivalrous property without permission, such that you now possess it, but they no longer have it.
To "infringe a copyright" is to make and distribute a copy of another person's work without their permission.
Both illegal, but very different things. What targets of copyright infringement are losing is not their property, but the potential extra profit they could have made if they'd retained their monopoly on the ability to copy and distribute their work.
Stealing is illegal because it deprives people of their property. Copyright infringement is illegal because (theoretically) it leads to a world where people are less incentivized to create things because they won't be able to profit as much.
- __MatrixMan__ 2y agoThis. The phrase "intellectual property" is an attempt to confuse a censorship strategy that's a few hundred years old with an entirely separate tradition that's been with us for millennia. They're very different, whatever words you use for them.
- Bluestein 2y agoReminds of a recent discussion seen here about 'identity theft'. Another blame-shifting concept ...
- adamomada 2y agoAnd then you have the people who say that language changes based on usage. Get enough people calling it property, theft, stealing, irregardless, etc. and then you can change the dictionary.
- __MatrixMan__ 2y agoWhich is why it's necessary to point out the mistake. If we don't act now, it'll eventually cease to be a mistake.
- singlow 2y agoThe word for stealing has been applied more broadly than your definition for millenia.
- cscurmudgeon 2y agoIf someone happily says "they stole my heart" do you go: a. Go and correct them about using language wrongly b. Find the heart and return it to its owner c. Understand the meaning correctly
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- klez 2y agoC, because in this case it's a figure of speech, not an attempt to characterize an act as something that it is not for economic reasons.
- cscurmudgeon 2y agoIt this case revenue or profit was stolen just like in wage theft. But you are not debating that for political reasons as wage theft won’t be theft going by your definition. Let’s say you write a book. I copy its pdf and sell it without your permission. You really think there is nothing immoral here? IP theft is a form of stealing fruits of labor.
- klez 2y ago> It this case revenue or profit was stolen The definition of theft is: a : the act of stealing specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property Revenue or profit where not stolen because they weren't there in the first place to take. There's potential revenue, but it's not there to be stolen yet. > [...] just like in wage theft. But you are not debating that for political reasons as wage theft won’t be theft going by your definition. Please assume good faith when discussing here. I personally don't think that the concept called "wage theft" is actual theft, for the same reasons I don't think copyright violations are theft. In fact, I don't think I ever used that term anywhere, in this thread or in the past. So please don't attribute to me thoughts that I didn't express. > You really think there is nothing immoral here? Why does the fact that something is or isn't theft imply whether or not it is immoral? A lot of things are immoral but aren't theft.
- tim333 2y agoI agree. It was a simplified version of things.