[dahart]

That’s incorrect. One absolutely can steal ideas, it’s even used explicitly in the definition of multiple dictionaries: “to claim credit for another’s idea” [1]; “to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment” [2]. The word steal has many definitions that don’t involve taking physical property, e.g., stealing elections, stealing liberty, stealing base, stealing a kiss, making fraudulent deals, etc., etc..

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal

[2] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/steal

[trinsic2]

It may be used in that context in our society, but you can't deprive someone of an idea or a expression of any idea.

The root of Stealing is to deprive:

deny (a person or place) the possession or use of something.

[dahart]

> The root of Stealing is to deprive

Says who? Where did you get that definition? Your claim isn’t very well supported by either of the two dictionaries that I linked to, nor any searches on the etymology of steal that I can find. A valid definition is a valid definition. Common usage is common usage. It may be common to refer to something physical that is deprived, but it’s also extremely common and also completely correct to refer to things stolen that do not deprive. You can, in fact, steal ideas, according to the definition of the word steal.

> It may be used in that context in our society

Yes, and that makes it de-facto correct usage! Discussion of idea stealing has been commonplace in business, and academics, and literature, and among children, and …. You can find a never-ending supply of references to stolen ideas online and in print. It seems especially ironic for people on a startup forum to argue that ideas can’t be stolen when it happens and gets referred to regularly.

[trinsic2]

For me, the etymology of words have more importance because they have a strong connection to the truth of what it is we are trying to convey. Synonyms are a sort of half-truths, constructs we have to use to get by in the world, but IMHO don't correctly resemble the real meaning of what we are talking about.

I did some searching online and I couldn't find an good root example of stealing, it seems related to stealth which I don't think correctly explains the subject we are discussing. I think what we are both talking about is theft. When I looked up the etymology of theft I found it related to fraud, "a fraudulent production, something intended to deceive". and it goes on, "deception practiced for the sake of what is deemed a good purpose;" the word also seems related to defraud, which could be where you are going with this, "deprive of right, by deception or breech of trust or withholding,"

To clarify, I think you CAN deprive someone of an expression of an idea. I incorrectly lumped it into the idea part. Having an idea (and communicating it to the world) vs having an expression of an idea, for me are two different things.

I don't believe there is any good that can come out of protecting ideas from loss or theft, so I don't put too much stock in the idea of IP law.

The expression of an idea is another matter. but I err on the side of "deception practiced for the sake of what is deemed a good purpose".

For me this is really about protecting the common good. There has to be a balance between the dissemination of creativity vs getting compensated for a work.

Right now, copyright, if that is what we are talking about, is way out of balance. Copyrights are mostly owned and wielded harmfully by corporations. When corporations use copyright, to stop, or take away purchased products, or prevent individuals from sharing in the spirit of sharing, that's where I draw the line. When copyright is used in this way, it deprives the public of some common good. I don't think copyright was ever meant to do that.

So respectfully, I disagree with you on this topic, the way contracts and copyrights are being used is harming our society.

[dahart]

Oh hey I almost missed your reply. So yes, correct, the etymology of the words steal and theft, in addition to accepted common usage and modern dictionaries, all unanimously support the notion that an idea can be “stolen”, in direct contradiction to @stcg’s claim 5 comments up. You initially made an incorrect assumption that the word or phrase has to imply that you’re depriving someone of their idea, but that’s not what the definition nor the etymology nor the current usage of the word steal implies. Perhaps that’s the same assumption that @stcg was making, but it’s a bit of a straw man because there is a different valid definition of steal in common usage that does not insist that the thing stolen is also taken away from someone, nor that it’s even “theft” in any legal sense at all. You may have temporariliy forgotten about poetic usage, such as “she stole my heart.” That common usage is hundreds or thousands of years old and obviously doesn’t refer to depriving me of my actual organs.

It’s important to remember that etymology is a tool to understand history, and is not the arbiter of word meaning. In fact, it’s extremely common for the etymological historical roots of words to have very different meanings from what they are now, and to have meanings that are no longer accepted or correct. Often with English, word roots come from different languages, and the etymology has little bearing on today’s usage or accepted dictionary definitions. The arbiter of word meaning is common usage, period. Language is not prescriptive, not defined by dictionaries or etymologies, those are just tools to help us document common usage over time. Language is defined by how it’s used, and when a lot of people say “he stole my idea”, it necessarily becomes correct usage, regardless of what the historical documents say about the word steal. This is one of the most fun aspects of language, but easily misunderstood and often forgotten, especially in forum discussions.

> So respectfully, I disagree with you on this topic, the way contracts and copyrights are being used is harming our society.

How on earth did you arrive at the idea that I said anything at all about copyrights or contracts in this thread? What exactly are you disagreeing with?? I’m so confused by this. It is a wild and completely non-sequitur detour from my perspective.