[LINK] Theft, copyright, larceny...

[Craig Sanders]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 10:57:48AM +1000, Stewart Fist wrote:
> Then in another posting Adam writes:
> 
> > However, recently, a woman in Sydney was jailed for copyright
> > breaches.  Although she was jailed for taking money from consumers
> > for pirated products.
> 
> Did anyone attack his use of "pirated products"?
> 
> Or was it a useful term to explain the idea he was expressing?

who cares what Todd says?

no-one has ever accused him of clear-thinking or consistency.  or even
relevance.


> -----
> 
> It is also noticeable that the lawyers on the list feel that legal
> definitions of words should set the standard for community use -- but they
> don't, and they wont.

we're talking, though, ABOUT legal issues - so the legal definition IS
the appropriate definition to use, not ill-informed slang and jargon.

sometimes precision in language is required.  sometimes it is not.


calling a copyright infringer a thief or a pirate is an error on
approximately the same order as calling someone a murderer for insulting
you.


> Lawyers might never refer to copyright violations as "theft", but
> journalists do and business people do, and their right to use the language

those journalists and business people who do are 100% wrong.

> to express an idea is close to that widely used in public, and is more in
> accordance with common usage than esoteric legal terminology.

common usage has been manipulated by a couple of decades worth of
copyright-industry propaganda. the fact that they have (mostly)
successfuly spread their pernicious memes in no way undermines the fact
that they are factually wrong.


> I, for one, will continue to use "theft" and "piracy" when writing for
> public consumption, 

one can only hope, then, that you defame someone who gets annoyed enough about
it to sue you for it.  maybe then you'll learn to be more precise in your use
of language, *especially* when writing for public consumption.

> despite attempts on the Link to impose legalistic euphemisms.

calling it "copyright infringement" is not a legalistic euphemism. it is
the correct terminology.

if anything, it is ignorant slang like "theft" and "piracy" which are
the euphemisms....although "euphemism" isn't right - "dysphemism" is the
appropriate word.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>

There is no ox so dumb as the orthodox.
		-- George Francis Gillette