[TAG] A case of copyright violation / plagiarism?

[Neil Youngman]

On or around Monday 09 October 2006 01:57, Benjamin A. Okopnik reorganised a 
bunch of electrons to form the message:
> Let's start with the basic premise: plagiarism is theft of
> another person's property; it is flatly wrong.

At the risk of starting a flame war, I'd like to say that I'm unhappy with the 
words "theft" and "property" here. 

Obviously plagiarism is wrong, but "theft" and "property" are a little too 
close to RIAA propaganda for my taste. In the term "Intellectual Property", 
property is only an analogy, which gets badly abused. Use of these terms 
promotes an over simplistic view of the complex legal issues 
surrounding "Intellectual Property".

As I recall, theft is "taking of property with intent to permanently deprive 
the owner of that property". The author is not being deprived of his IP when 
it is copied, although in this case he may be deprived of the credit for it.

While the word "theft" makes the point very strongly, it is best avoided in 
these debates. Could we please avoid such loaded terms as "theft" 
and "piracy" and stick to "plagiarism" and "copyright violation" please?

Neil Youngman