[hyperpape]

Jiminy cricket. Copyright violation isn't theft, but saying you "stole" a maze isn't a literal accusation of theft either.

"Good artists copy; great artists steal." -- someone a long time ago "UMMMMM, IT'S NOT ACTUALLY THEFT!" --you.

[jordigh]

It is important to repeat "copying is not theft" because it's at the heart of the arguments that e.g. the MPAA make to the public in order to convince them of the evils of copyright infringement ("you wouldn't steal a car," etc). TFA seems to be trying to appeal to the evil of Kraft's deeds by suggesting that something has been stolen from him.

It seems clear to me that nothing of the sort of theft has happened, and at least some people would instead be flattered to have their work reproduced large scale instead of slinging accusations of theft. If it were me, I would use this to promote the value of my own work. Maybe I would try to talk to someone at Kraft before firing the lawyer cannons, perhaps just work out a deal where they give me some sort of recognition. Even recognising the copyright infringement, it seems to be on such small scale (one maze out of hundreds?) that it might be difficult to argue for damages incurred.

This person isn't flattered, but the language of "theft" indicates a graver damage than what actually has happened.

[chrisbennet]

Is it not "theft" because that word is pejorative and another word should be used?

Is it because it isn't taking something without permission?

Is it because intellectual property isn't property in some sense?

Is it because the original isn't really "owned"?

Is it be because the owner still has the original?

Given similar reasoning, "identify theft" isn't really theft. After all, if someone "stole" my identity I'd still have the original.

[emn13]

Honestly: I don't think the term "identity theft" is a good one. It's not clear at all what exactly that even means unless people have had it explained to them; and even then it's pretty vague and encompasses lots of things.

Identify theft is a kind of fraud or perhaps libel, but it's certainly not conventional theft.

Nevertheless, the term has taken on a life of its own, and that's just the way language works. The problem arises when people say inane things like "you wouldn't steal a car, would you?". That analogy is sort of like saying you shouldn't go on strike, after all, you wouldn't want somebody to strike you, right?

So, is it theft? Well, from a linguistic perspective: it's called whatever it's called. But it's simply deceptive to pretend that merely because the same word is used that the meaning must be equivalent too. It's particularly unfortunately that the manipulation of language is probably intentionally deceptive; the notion of intellectual property didn't arise amongst the average English speaker, but amongst a special interest group that stands to gain by causing this particular confusion.

[eric_h]

> Identify theft is a kind of fraud or perhaps libel, but it's certainly not conventional theft.

there is some argument that it is conventional theft. It does, essentially, render the original unfit for use until considerable time is spent repairing it.

[emn13]

Sure, if you squint just the right way, and ignore the fact that your identity isn't actually gone only partially vandalized. It's theft the same way your neighbor steals your house when he builds an ugly shed that blocks your view.

It really isn't the same thing. It's vaguely related, and that's fine, but pretending the two meanings are identical in an analogy (you wouldn't steal a car?) is still disingenuous.

[mordocai]

Playing devil's advocate:

If someone "steals" your identity, it isn't really theft sure. Really, you both have a pointer to that identity. The problem, which makes it a good idea for it to be illegal, is that you both have a pointer to the EXACT SAME identity. Thus, any destructive(or benevolent) changes they make affect your identity as well.

Contrast this with most forms of "copyright theft", where the original owner still has the original AND any changes you make to your copy have no effect on the original.

[chrisbennet]

However, "copyright theft" does have an effect on the value of the original.

Suppose you write a book report for school and another student copies yours and passes their copy in first. You still have your original but it is significantly devalued. Passing it in may actually have negative value as you maybe accused of cheating.

It may not be theft but I think it hard to argue that it is not taking something of value without permission.

[emn13]

First if all: merely finding some instances of copyright violation that reduce a copyrights value does not validate calling it theft. By that line of reasoning half of the English language is approximately theft. This very answer is stealing your copyrighted answer by undermining its validity, thereby reducing its value, therefore it's equivalent the theft.

That's a preposterously loose requirement. Secondly, even in your example, the damage isn't primarily caused by the copying, it's primarily caused by the misrepresentation. If the copier had been truthful about the source, it's doubtful the original would have been much devalued.

In any case, clearly copyright violation can devalue the copyright. It's certainly not always the case (it may even increase the value of the copyright), but it's a serious risk. However, that still doesn't make it equivalent to theft, any more than vandalism, fraud, competition, criticism, libel, etc. are theft. Some of those are even considered virtuous - as a society we supposedly encourage criticism and competition (even if many sectors manage to pay only lip service to that notion).

[Liesmith]

It was T.S. Eliot. and the real quote is "Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different."