4 ms·
> "...it's hard to classify their actions from a moral standpoint as something other than stealing." It's not hard. A critical aspect of property theft is the
by nate_meurer 13y ago
> "...it's hard to classify their actions from a moral standpoint as something other than stealing."
It's not hard. A critical aspect of property theft is the deprivation of property experienced by the victim. IP "theft" lacks this aspect entirely. Using the term in this way makes you no better than the CEO of Turner Broadcasting who claims that not watching advertisements constitutes "stealing" of TV.
Call it "sampling" or "counterfeiting" if you want, but "theft" is misapplication of a term with an otherwise well-established definition.
- sillysaurus3 13y agoCould it be a confusion of definition? Some would define stealing as, "You have no right to be enjoying my work unless you have paid me what I ask. It's your right to choose not to pay me and look for a different product."
- nate_meurer 13y agoSure, you can make up your own definitions for words as much as you want. If you want, you can conflate the definitions of all kinds of criminal labels -- theft, rape, terrorism[1], etc. It's a time-honored tactic of those who seek to demagogue positions they oppose. But it makes a mockery of the serious crimes that those terms describe, and it does nothing to help you effectively communicate your own point of view. [1] - Note that there is currently a concerted effort by many to connect IP infringement to "terrorism".
- mitchty 13y agoIt could be, but the problem there is its a different concept being implemented as the same english word stealing. One has a legal definition implying loss of a tangible good, the other a rather different definition implying you haven't paid to use a thing. Both are correct grammatically, but they aren't the same thing in the end.