undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjohansch10y ago0 comments

Stolen implies that the original owner no longer has access to the data due to the actions of the perpetrator.

0 comments

11 comments · 3 top-level

bduerst10y ago· 4 in thread

For physical property, yes. For intellectual property, it can still be stolen even if the original owner still has a copy.

e.g. The Soviet spies stole the plans for the hydrogen bomb.

tbrownaw10y ago

No, for intellectual property the word "stolen" is not appropriate.

(Well, unless you're talking about getting the courts to tell the original owner it's yours instead. Which has been at least attempted a few times.)

bduerst10y ago

It is semantically appropriate for the word steal. I think you're confusing it with the criminal implications.

johanschOP10y ago

Ah, so you mean the actual blueprints? And the poor Americans had no copies? How stupid of them!

Natanael_L10y ago

So... copied.

nkrisc10y ago· 3 in thread

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal

See definition 1d.

rustynails10y ago

A different angle is to look at what is accepted in a court of law. Laws do not consider copying/infringement to be stealing. I know some people who say gunna (I was gunna do it). However, that doesn't make it correct. So, usage is not a measure of validity either. Most online dictionaries exclude steal/theft being linked to infringement/copyright.

nkrisc10y ago

EDIT: Look at OED's additions list from June 2015, specifically under 'g': http://public.oed.com/the-oed-today/recent-updates-to-the-oe...

'gunna'. Is it still wrong?

--original comment--

Common usage does eventually lead to validity, though. Language is not static and evolves through usage. Besides, how are you going to measure validity? Is the OED the sole arbiter of what's "correct"? Common usage and mutual understanding is a great way to determine what's "correct" in a language.

I won't debate the legal usage of the word, as there was no mention of legal interpretation by the courts in the previous comments. However you are correct from a legal perspective where words have specific meanings.

jsizz10y ago

So now Merriam-Webster has become the Twelfth Circuit? This is the lamest jurisdiction shopping I've seen in a while.

gaius10y ago· 1 in thread

The original owner no longer has access to the revenue stream so yes, the implication is correct.

ryandrake10y ago

Then, say "potential revenue" was stolen, not content.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse