3 ms·
But clearly, people who take a stricter stance regarding "intellectual property" want to use the most common definition of "to steal", of taking someone's physi
by UweSchmidt 12y ago
But clearly, people who take a stricter stance regarding "intellectual property" want to use the most common definition of "to steal", of taking someone's physical object away. A weasel word, or a little dishonest, since we are dealing with a completely different type of situation:
- When someone copies your content, you keep it. A loss happens on an abstract level of potential lost profit etc.
- Someone else just might have had the same thought process as you and distilled some widely available piece of information into the same joke as the official joke author. Who owns it?
- The joke author has probably processed a vast amount of humor, and information in general and inevitably, unconsciously builds his joke on this foundation without being able to "attribute" anything.
I'd say if you have a good case you can do fine without using the s-word.
- sophacles 12y agoI generally come down on the side of copyright infringement is not theft - it's something different. If I copy the latest pop song, no one has been deprived of it. However, in the case of plagiarism (and related forms of passing of another's work as mine...), there is something really akin to property theft: credit theft. If you take my words, and pass them off as your own, and get credit for them rather than me - well then it is pretty much the same thing as you taking my dollar: I am deprived of it.