Re: Napster destroys Western Civilization

On Fri, 19 May 2000, Dodi Schultz <schultz[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> So we end up using two different vocabularies.
>
> Thus: To me, an infringement on my copyright means that someone has
> *taken* something from me. In legal terms, that's not *theft,*
> because copyright is intangible. In lay language, taking something
> that rightly "belongs to" someone else, whether it's a tangible
> possession or a right that has been granted to that person by law
> (e.g., copyright), is stealing from that individual.
>
> No, I'm not saying that any of us need to adopt a new vocabulary.
> Only that being aware of those differences might be helpful. We
> might be in more agreement than we think.

But, the problem with this argument is that not all laymen will agree with your definition of "theft" -- that copying is the same as stealing. We can agree that unauthorized copying is wrong without resorting to emotion-laden vocabulary.

When debating legal doctrine, even laymen are well-advised to attempt to learn the terminology. When advised of the differences or limits imposed by the legal terms of art, to _insist_ on using the terminology in the more vague sense is mere rhetoric, and in my opinion degrades the argument rather than enhancing it.

• Patrick O'Donnell pao[_at_]alum.mit.edu