[LINK] Theft, copyright, larceny...

[Brendan Scott]

Stewart Fist wrote:
> In the discussion on the use of terms like "theft" and "piracy" Rick says

[]
 
> 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.

BTW the context of this discussion was the commenting on a legal case by a law officer. 

> Legal terminology is useful jargon, but it is not English language.  Every
> trade has its jargon and the legal profession is the master at convoluted
> expression.
> 
> Lawyers might never refer to copyright violations as "theft", but
> journalists do and business people do, and their right to use the language
> to express an idea is close to that widely used in public, and is more in
> accordance with common usage than esoteric legal terminology.
> 
> I, for one, will continue to use "theft" and "piracy" when writing for
> public consumption, despite attempts on the Link to impose legalistic
> euphemisms.

This is inverted.  The point is the terms are *not* used in the community, they are used by the lawyers of media companies to brand their initiatives (apparently successfully).  They are used specifically to associate infringement (which no one, if home taping, Napster etc is any guide, has any moral qualms with) with known morally bad behaviour.  

How many members of the community do you know who would describe copyright infringements as theft or stealing?  There will be some, and there will be more in certain circumstances (eg copying on a substantial scale) but overall?  If it's really "theft" the word should describe all/most infringements, otherwise it's rhetoric.  The fact that journalists are picking it up is only evidence that they have been co-opted (or are 5th columnists).   


Brendan