I too wish people would stop using words properly.
steal [steel] ,verb, stole, sto·len, steal·ing, noun
verb (used with object)
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
May I also suggest you look up the term 'colloquial.' This isn't a court room.
"1: the act of infringing : violation
2: an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege"
Infringement on someone's property is more like trespassing than deprivation of a good.
But funnily enough, in this case it may actually be "copyright theft", which in 95% of the cases gets misused when meaning copyright infringement. Copyright theft actually means taking someone's work, and saying it's your work. And this is what NBC seems to have done.
I guess it was too subtle before. "deprivation of a good" is not a requirement for all definitions of the word 'steal' or theft when talking outside a courtroom.
>Infringement on someone's property
You mean "2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment."
My god that's stealing!
>Copyright theft actually means taking someone's work, and saying it's your work
Since you're trying so hard to be pedantic, that would be plagiarism (act) and copyright infringement (legally). On the street, that is referred to as theft.
Can we please stop complaining about using the terms 'stealing' and 'theft' to refer to copyright infringement? Nothing in the discussion changes one bit because of the use of these words. Anybody that goes "well, it's theft, so it's wrong, by definition" dismisses himself from the discussion anyway. It doesn't matter that people call it 'theft'.
BTW, did you know you can steal water from the ocean?
On the contrary, I highly recommend reading JackC's explanation on "theft" vs. "copyright infringement" in terms of "alienable rights": http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3696526
I sincerely doubt that nothing would change in a discussion after an explanation like that one. Maybe if the discussion was already restricted to lawyers, nothing would change.
I don't understand your comment. You say 'on the contrary', but then link to a an explanation that I read as completely supporting my argument that this discussion is pointless and unnecessary, because either we agree the act is (il)legal under current law or the discussion is about whether the act is or should be legal. What someone uses as a shorthand to refer to the act doesn't bear upon that discussion.
If I appropriate your lawn mower, you no longer have a lawn mower. That's "stealing". If I use intellectual property that you own without your permission, that's copyright infringement, but you still possess both your property and your rights to it. That's not "stealing".
It is possible to steal IP though. If you assert ownership of an intellectual property, then your next step can be to stop the original artist from claiming royalties. An example would be the companies claiming ownership of public domain films and then getting youtube to yank the public domain versions.
So if NBC was claiming they owned the Apple artwork, its stealing because that ownership (if uncontested) allows them to collect royalties, etc.
Apple still have their logo. If Apple exces go to the graphics storage cupboard and find the logo missing and unavailable for them to use, then it might well have been "stolen".
I'm surprised. When the issue of auto-theft came up (many years ago) the ruling was very different. Legally speaking if you took a car for a spin and dumped it (back with the owner, or whatever) this was technically not theft - as there was no intent to permanently deprive the owner of the car.
I'm pretty sure they ruled it was still considered theft - off the back of similar legislation changes in the UK.
It's worth pointing out (I can't edit my previous comment) I was just responding to the one issue, and the problem is more nuanced... for example:
- The law wasn't really reconsidered to deal with copyright infringement. It was changed to deal with situations where you broke into a computer and took copies of data (interesting to note that this was not actually a new issue at the time; if you broke into someone's office and took photos of data they couldn't charge you with theft - the reason it was changed this time I am not sure on, probably just the prevailing mood).
- Quite how much the extent of information loss on a public thing like an image (for which you have to undertake no infiltration or transformative process to recover) applies is largely untested, because this stuff is broadly dealt with under copyright infringement
- The extent to which money - both loss of, and the making of (by the infringer) - comes into it is undetermined.
- This is not a new change. It happened years ago (as in at least the 90's, perhaps before).
The real bottom line is that much of our laws are inadequate in dealing with the internet. :)
But; "theft" is no longer defined, in the UK at least, as the GP indicated.
But that is the point, Apple have not lost the information - they still have their icon and can keep using it. There's a distinction between that and someone breaking into Apple's computer system and erasing all of their other copies of the icon, which would be the closest analogy to classical theft in this case.
I appreciate the appeal to what feels like common sense, but right now more than ever, the distinction between "classical theft" and replicating a series of ones and zeroes is extremely important. A war of minds is going on, and the relegation of all things copyright into the category of "theft" attempts to subtly justify any reaction to copyright infringement by making it equivalent to deprivation of property.
This is a tough topic because the word steal does have a valid semantic meaning in this context, and anyone who argues with common use of language always comes off as pedantic ('what is an iTouch? It's an iPod Touch!!!'), but its important for those of us who understand how digital media works continue to continue emphasizing the real world differences between theft and copyright infringement.
It's not theft of the digital entity, it's theft of the time and effort that went into creating the digital entity. The relevant concept is Theft Of Services.
Theft of services still implies the consumption of someone else's resources. By not paying for the service, the provider faces tangible losses (because the opportunity to service a paying customer is lost). In this particular case, Apple loses absolutely nothing. The designer is still wrong (and IMO, plagiarizing copyrighted design assets merits termination), but Apple's capacity to service their customers is not hindered by this.
Yes, please. Read the linked, incredibly enlightening comment (from an actual lawyer, even!) on HN some weeks back about the distinction between copyright and theft.
While I don't disagree that there is some difference between illegally copying something digitally and physically taking something, the effect is so similar that getting hung up on the linguistics seems a bit silly to me.
Can we please stop using the terms "stealing" and "theft" to refer to copyright infringement?