steve szmidt wrote:
<snip>
> Taking something which is not yours is still theft, just not as bad as other
> crimes. Haha. Not calling it theft is just plain silly. Many other people
> like to alter the name to try to lessen their crime. But theft is still
> theft
> whatever you call it.
Not really. Depriving another individual of a physical object is a very
different scenario. Allowing copyright infrigement to be labeled theft
makes it easier to assign ridiculous criminal punishments and a heightened
sense of urgency.
theft
n.
1. The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.
2. Obsolete. Something stolen.
While theft -> stealing,
steal
v. intr.
1. To commit theft.
I'll argue further that you cannot deprive the copyright holder of
intellectual property itself, the knowledge that comprises that which you're
buying a license to experience, so it still is not theft.
The real argument surrounding theft -- unsurprisingly -- is whether or not
the copyright holder is actually being deprived of potential revenue from
copyright infrigement. But that's an entirely different discussion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:48:19 EDT