I never said "felony". "Theft" is not legalese, and it means taking someone's personal property (go look it up in a simple, English, non-legalese dictionary). Depriving someone of income is not "theft". Violating copyright is not necessarilly depriving someone of income.

So violating copyright is quite a bit removed from "theft". But you have so missed the point of my note that I doubt you'll be able to understand what I'm talking about here either.

And, again, I'm not advocating the violation of copyrights. I just find even discussing the concept of copyright pointless if we can't get passed the (mistaken) idea that the information is "property", much less getting passed the idea that copying it is "theft".

I never said "felony". "Theft" is not legalese, and it means taking someone's personal property (go look it up in a simple, English, non-legalese dictionary).

I'm aware of what you said. I apologise for confusion created by using your note as a peg on which to hang some of my thoughts on notes including yours but also a number by MeowChow.

If we're going to argue semantics, what function is performed by the word 'personal' in your definition, and why is yours better than mine, except in that it backs up your argument?

Depriving someone of income is not "theft". Violating copyright is not necessarilly depriving someone of income.

Ever hear of people suing/being compensated for loss of earnings? While that's (not) necessarily theft, it does highlight that earnings are a legal right. I'm legally entitled to the earnings I generate in my work, so if someone were somehow to prevent me gaining those earnings, they've robbed me just as much as if they'd pinched my wallet. And while not all copyright is income-generating, it is all potentially so.

So violating copyright is quite a bit removed from "theft". But you have so missed the point of my note that I doubt you'll be able to understand what I'm talking about here either.

Whoa. Calm down. I did not miss the point of your note. I merely refuted it. If you can't make the connection between my point and yours, fine. But don't accuse me of not understanding. I ken fine wha' ye mean.

I just find even discussing the concept of copyright pointless if we can't get past the (mistaken) idea that the information is "property".

That view is only mistaken in your opinion. If you refuse to discuss the concepts involved because you disbelieve their existence, fine. But at the moment, you're employing proof by vigorous assertion. Information is only 'not property' because you're denying it. There's clearly a decision axiom here - that is, a choice you must make in order to continue deducing - and you've jumped one way and I've jumped another. (Read the history of non-Euclidean geometry some time.) Copyright discussions inherently use the axiom that (original) information is property.

Tiefling