> So when someone takes something of value

> it is essentially taking something of value

Intellectual property is not "taken". It is not a tangible good that can change hands. Copies are made instead.

Having a copyright means having the right to make copies.

To infringe someone's copyright is to make copies despite the right to make copies belonging to someone else.

The words are self-explanatory.

Real property logic and words do not apply to intellectual property. Insisting on their use is bad faith argumentation. It is an attempt to convince others by shock and manipulation. Virtually nobody is moved by such a nebulous crime as copyright infringement, so the words theft and piracy are substituted in its place for greater impact.

▲

keeda 4 days ago | parent [-]

Sigh, I knew the word "take" would invoke pedanticity...

So when you "take interest" or "take advantage" or "take a look" or "take your time", what tangible good is being "taken"?

When you "take pleasure in something", like say a TV show, you are deriving value from it. What tangible goods are involved here?

When somebody provides you a service -- say washing your car -- you are still taking value from it even without a single tangible good being given. Or would you not pay the person because no "tangible good" has been given to you?

English is a rich language and pedanticity does not help this debate. Instead, you may want to address the core argument: when someone provides value (again: goods AND services) to another party and does not receive acceptable value in return, it is considered immoral, which is why society has made it illegal.

And yes, the word "theft" is prefectly suitable in this case. Otherwise you should explain why all of these involve some loss to party and are immoral / illegal without a single tangible good being "taken": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44917565

▲

matheusmoreira 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

We're citing and discussing the precise definitions of specific legal terms. Your counterargument is to point out the colloquial and out of context usage of words.

I already replied to the argument you cited. It's already been explained to you. Even the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.

If I really wanted to be pedantic, I would start claiming that it's all the english expressions you cited that are weird and make no sense at first glance.

I don't "take pleasure in something", I derive pleasure from something. The pleasure is obviously not contained in the object or activity. It's not even a real thing that can be taken. Pleasure is just the way my mind reacts when I engage with an object or in an activity I enjoy. A feeling spontaneously generated from something else.

I don't "take interest in something", I develop an interest in something. The subject did not contain the interest, it just spontaneously appeared in my mind after I considered the subject, leading me to want to know more.

The detail that makes these expressions work is the word "in". The places pleasure and interest are taken from are actually left unspecified. What this means is people "take" pleasure and interest from the intangible abstract world and place them in their minds over the course of engaging with an object or activity. I can definitely empathize with the thought process that produced these weird colloquial expressions.

But who am I to question the meaning of english words anyway? I'm not even a native. That's why I cite authorities such as the Supreme Court of the United States. They say copyright infringement is not strictly equivalent to theft. Courts have ruled that it's not even strictly equivalent to commercial loss. All that makes sense and I believe them.

This really should mark the end of this discussion.

▲

the_af 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It's not "pedanticity", it's that the facts matter and you are wrong.

We've seen this tactic before: proponents of draconian copyright laws intentionally conflated "copying" (as in the digital world) with "theft" (as in "you wouldn't steal a car" -- are you familiar with this campaign from 2004 that largely backfired?).

So that's why words matter. You are misusing them in a way that has been weaponized in the past, which is why I and many others are vigilant and quick to correct you.

▲

ninetyninenine 3 days ago | parent [-]

>We've seen

This is what bugs me about you. Who is "we"? It's like you're calling "we" the rest of the free world. Be real, most people aren't on your side.

"We" in reality is just a small group of fanatical FSF members vs. The rest of the entire world.

	▲	matheusmoreira 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		"We" refers to people who agree with us, and that includes the Supreme Court of the United States. Refer to my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44921015 > Theft, meanwhile, emphasizes the potential commercial harm of infringement to copyright holders. > However, copyright is a type of intellectual property, an area of law distinct from that which covers robbery or theft, offenses related only to tangible property. > Not all copyright infringement results in commercial loss > the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1985 that infringement does not easily equate with theft > Judge Kathleen M. Williams granted a motion to deny the MPAA the usage of words whose appearance was primarily "pejorative" > This list included the word "piracy", the use of which, the motion by the defense stated, serves no court purpose but to misguide and inflame the jury
	▲	3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]