[klibertp]

I refuse to acknowledge the word "steal" as appropriate here. "Intellectual property" stealing was known for ages and described the process of depriving someone of attribution of his work. I can steal a poem if I recite it as my own. This is stealing, theft, and was recognized as such since really long ago.

OTOH, if I print, or make a handwritten copy of this same poem, preserving the name of the author, I'm not stealing. It may be debatable what I actually did, but I did not steal.

Every time I see well defined concept being reused to mean something different than it meant for hundreds of years I'm cautious. I think everyone should be.

[johnchristopher]

If one prints copy of "this same poem" and sells it or distribute if for free (and there is no free lunch) then one stole the printing rights that the author granted (for a sum of money or a regular paycheck) to the official printer (the one who has a contract with the author). Regarding books, ideas are more or less free, the materialization of that work of thought into our physical realm (be it dead pieces of cellulose or bits on magnetic support), however, is not.

Kant wrote a bit about it.

[gurkendoktor]

"Stealing" still not be the proper term, but the grandparent posting was not talking about stealing IP, but about stealing fundamental IP rights.