Re: Napster destroys Western Civilization

On 05/19/2000, Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 May 2000, Dodi Schultz <schultz[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > I suggested that taking something from me without my permission,
> > even if the thing taken is not tangible (like a book or a CD) but
> > something intangible (like my copyright or my reputation) is --
> > in a moral/ethical sense, even if not in legal terminology -- theft.
>
> In that case, anything that's wrong is "theft." Lock me in a room?
> You've deprived me of freedom to move -- theft of my freedom. Cut
> across my front lawn? Theft of that part of my property for that
> period of time. Polluted excessively? Theft of my clean air.
>
> If you want to make "theft" that meaningless, fine, you can have
> your own private definition of the word that makes it meaningless.
> But for those of us who prefer that our words provide meaningful
> distinctions, labeling infringement as theft is simply misdescriptive.

Lawyers are frequently accused of verbal obfuscation. While this is sometimes justified, often it comes from a misperception of legal expression. While the words 'theft' and 'possession,' even 'own' have a common range of meanings when used on the street, their range of meaning in formal legal expression may be altogether different, or, more likely, far more restricted and specific. But there is another aspect to this expression which distinguishes it from common parlance. In ordinary conversation, we express ourselves more or less spontaneously, leaving the listener to interpret the meaning of our words. Were it not for a high degree of redundancy and a range of meaning, we would not be understood at all. In legal expression, however, it is not sufficient to rely on spontaneous expression, hoping that speaker and listener share a common understanding. In law, the meaning of significant terms is a matter of custom, consensus, and even rule. If I use the word 'theft' in a way that has no legal authority, I am simply mistaken as far as legal discourse is concerned.

My point is that we are not simply talking about different vocabularies, but two distinct modes of discourse. Lawyers should be adept at both and should appreciate that laypersons are unfamiliar with the rules of legal discourse. Nevertheless, once the discussion shifts to the legal sphere, lawyers become upset with the misuse of terms of art. In the legal arena, the use (or misuse) of words has consequences.

Ransford Pyle
<pyle[_at_]mail.ucf.edu> Received on Sun May 21 2000 - 13:54:21 GMT