[davedx]

> Preventing someone from getting value out of their work is theft

No, it's not. You (or random large media corps) do not get to unilaterally redefine words of the English language like that.

Pass whatever laws you want about it, enforce them however you feel is appropriate, but don't try to redefine language itself to push your agenda.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/theft

[kube-system]

"IP theft" is not counter to that definition. Intellectual property is a 'something'. That definition, does not require depriving someone else of something. As another valid example, see "identity theft".

Furthermore, English is not prescriptive; dictionaries are a lagging reference of observed use... so yes, the users of English absolutely do get to redefine language. That's how all modern English words originated.

And finally, if your dictionary doesn't account for "IP theft", you have simply found an incorrect dictionary, because that usage is undeniably widespread -- whether or not you agree with the concept politically.

[tmerc]

"IP theft" is a contradiction.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intellectual_property https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/theft

Between these two pages, you should be able to understand why "ip theft" is a bogus term. It's specifically called out in the intellectual property article.

"Unlike other forms of property, intellectual property can be used by infinitely many people without depriving the original owner of the use of their property."

Whereas theft has this definition: "Theft is the taking of another person’s personal property with the intent of depriving that person of the use of their property."

My not-a-lawyer understanding is that we use a common law system in the USA. This means that the definitions for things are based on history, previous cases, and the statutes that have been codified into law. This is a good thing because redefining words can make previously legal actions become illegal. Allowing that to happen at the pace slang develops in the modern era means we will hold people to different standards based on how "hip" they are.

[kube-system]

In a court of law, yes. In colloquial English (as cited in the general English-language dictionary above), no, the use is much more broad.

[davedx]

I said you don’t get to redefine what words mean unilaterally. I disagree that enough English speakers agree with the MPA definition for us to adopt it. I sure don’t.

[Telaneo]

> Intellectual property is a 'something'.

Good thing I don't recognise the existence of that. We live in a society that does, and I despise that. At least the EU has the sense to not recognise software patents, so 'intellectual property' is not all-encompassing. Maybe one day they can loosen the grip further.

> As another valid example, see "identity theft".

'Identity fraud' is a much better term for what this is. Someone using my name, phone number and my mother's maiden name to get money in my name is not stealing my name and phone number; it's just fraud. It's much closer to lying than stealing.

[kube-system]

English is how people use English words. You can not like it, but that is simply your opinion.

[Telaneo]

Never said it was anything but.

[JohnLocke4]

English is not a programming language. You're only disagreeing with my articulation here, which is irrelevant in relation to the thing of the matter - namely what I mean rather than what I type into the keyboard physically.