[repsilat]

The legal definitions of words like "theft" and "ownership" and "property" are not the only definitions. There's obviously a widely held definition of "theft" that does include copyright infringement, whether it constitutes theft in a legal sense or not. (You can tell it's widespread because the argument that "infringement is not theft" keeps being made against all kinds of people.)

You can argue that the usage of that term might be prejudicial, but calling it incorrect is at odds with the enlightened linguistic descriptivism we're all so enamoured of. :)

[sophacles]

You can argue that the usage of that term might be prejudicial, but calling it incorrect is at odds with the enlightened linguistic descriptivism we're all so enamoured of. :)

I get what you are saying, but this is a bit hypocritical. The very act of arguing and pushing for new terms, and trying to clarify language is in fact OK and even encouraged, even if one is a descriptivist. Even the most passionate "let language do what it will" person will agree that at some point you can't have every word collapsing into every idea.

[repsilat]

I think I agree, for the most part. I have no problem with people arguing that copyright shouldn't be called theft, but I do have a problem with people arguing that copyright can't be called theft.

Perhaps the distinction is finer than the subject deserves. If I'm honest I think I prefer the "should not" argument to the "may not" one because the latter begs for shallow, deductive arguments from definitions instead of admitting a more thoughtful discussion.

[quicksilver03]

If someone wants to sue me for theft, they'd better do it according to the legal definition of theft. If not, that's defamation.