Re: Napster destroys Western Civilization

On Sun, 21 May 2000, Ransford Pyle <pyle[_at_]mail.ucf.edu> wrote:
>
> 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: Completely agree. I would point out, though, that the discussion of whether or not an activity is *morally* right or wrong is not well served by trying to apply *legal* definitions. There is a legal view and a moral view, and applying language from one arena to a point of contention in the other arena only muddles the issue.

Regards,
Marty

Marty Hayes
<9ball[_at_]hostsite.net> Received on Mon May 22 2000 - 16:18:22 GMT