On Tue, 23 May 2000, Marty Hayes <9ball[_at_]hostsite.net> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2000, Patrick A. O'Donnell <pao[_at_]ascent.com> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > 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.
>
> As for the word "theft", perhaps you would be correct. However,
> I would refer those laymen (and you at the same time, since it
> appears you are suggesting that "theft" and "steal" are the same)
> to Merriam-Webster's online dictionary to look at the definition ...
(Yes, I'm not a lawyer.) If we had to go look up every word we read in a dictionary, online or not, we'd never get much reading done. The problem that I was commenting upon is the "common understanding" of words. Yes, a dictionary can attempt to capture that, but when reading text generally, one depends on one's own understanding as gathered from a lifetime of discourse. _That_ is where the problem lies. Your understanding of "theft" and "steal" will _not_ be the same as mine. Close, probably, but in the fine cases where subtle distinctions need to be made, we could end up arguing in circles because we don't _really_ know what the other person is trying to say.
Some correspondents were using "theft" as to encompass infringement. When informed that "theft" had a more specific meaning, the response was, basically, "well, that's ok, but we all know 'theft' means more than that, and I still want to use it for infringement." Why would one want to do that? "Because everyone knows what 'theft' means." Not. The only reason I can see is because people generally have a stronger response to "theft" than to "infringement".
"Archimedes stole my car!"
"Archimedes infringed my copyright!"
> Also, I think it's quite a stretch to term the word "steal"
> as "emotion-laden" vocabulary.
You think so; I don't.
> Finally, while you may think that we can all agree that unauthorized
> copying is wrong, that's also not so. We cannot all agree, ...
More evidence. I didn't say "all", but you heard it.
> > 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.
>
> Your comment is all fine and good... except for one thing. The
> discussion, to my recollection, didn't start out as a "legal" one.
> It began as a discussion of whether or not it's "morally" wrong to
> copy.
Fine. I didn't read the start of this discussion. Should that matter?
I suppose it does -- if the argument is:
Theft is morally wrong.
Copyright infringement is theft.
.... then it is critical whether your disputants concur with your definitions, for if they reject your second premise, whether they accept your first or not, you'd better either convince them of its validity or find a different argument. Simply saying that what _you_ call theft encompasses infringement is not sufficient.
> Just as you feel that it degrades a discussion of a legal nature
> to use vague terms that are not strictly legal definitions, I
> would suggest that so too does it degrade a *non-legal* discussion
> to insist on limiting the meaning of words strictly to their
> "legal" definitions.
It completely escapes me how using more precise language can create a less effective discussion.
Patrick A. O'Donnell
<pao[_at_]ascent.com>
Received on Thu May 25 2000 - 22:06:24 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:39 GMT