View Single Post
Old 11-20-2009, 11:08 AM   #230
pdurrant
The Grand Mouse 高貴的老鼠
pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
pdurrant's Avatar
 
Posts: 74,103
Karma: 315558332
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norfolk, England
Device: Kindle Oasis
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc View Post
I'm speaking in universal terms.
It seems to me that you (& others) who use theft to describe copyright infringement are seeking to redefine theft.

Is copyright infringement just as wrong as theft of a physical object?

I don't believe it is. And so it is useful and proper to have a separate word/phrase for the action. Deliberate blurring of the difference between the two acts is wrong.

Of course, we could just use theft as a general word for a wrong action:

Stealing an object is theft.
Copying an ebook is theft. (of the potential income)
Breaking a window is theft. (of the utility of the window)
Identity theft is theft. (of the credulity of others?)
Breaking the speed limit is theft. (of the safety of others)
Arson is theft. (of the burnt property)
Murder is theft. (of the life cut short)

But, IMO, having different words for different wrong actions is useful. We shouldn't mix them up needlessly.
pdurrant is offline   Reply With Quote