Talk:Dowling v. United States (1985)

message: I have applied to the cabal for mediation: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-05-21_Dowling_v._United_States. Mr2001 01:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: "Some copyright advocates consider it theft of intellectual property" in the first paragraph? BrownHornet21 03:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "it" refers to copyright infringement. I thought that would be clear from context: "X was a case deciding on whether Y could be legally considered Z. Some people consider it W [which is similar to Z], but that's a separate issue." Feel free to clarify the paragraph if you think it's necessary, though. Mr2001 07:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is "it"?  Copyright infringment?

message: I assert that Kidradical's recent changes are misleading and incorrect.  To state that the case was about whether the defendant's actions "could be legally considered theft of physical goods in addition to theft of intellectual property" is incorrect.  The Supreme Court held that "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft" and thus to state that there was "theft" of intellectual property is grammatically and legally incorrect.  Kidradical's changes beg the very question this case attempted to answer (and answered in the negative).  --ElKevbo 22:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I also re-edited that paragraph to attempt to make it clearer and remove ambiguity. Thoughts? -- Hux 20:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: On second thought, the sentence in parentheses shouldn't even be in the opening paragraph, plus it's very weasel wordy. I've removed it and added the sentiment it was conveying into the "significance of the case" section. Hopefully I've succeeded in removing the emotive language that was causing the earlier disputes. -- Hux 19:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kidradical's recent changes

message: Clearly, the fact that the word 'theft' is still used today legal professionals for copyright infringement, despite the judgement is relevant.
I would argue that 'IP Theft' is commonly used amongst legal professionals.
Clearly, however, I have to provide justification for that.  (My earlier phrasing was quite correctly changed to simply 'some' legal professionals.)
However, how many references do I need to give before I can consider that I've made the point?
Clearly, the Department of Justice uses the term in almost every discussion they take part in involving intellectual property violations.  (I gave one reference).  For example, would I need to give 10, 100, 1000, before I can reasonably say that the DoJ uses the term commonly?
How many attributions do I need to give before I can reasonably say that it is commonly used ?
(The fact that it may be an incorrect use is fascinating, but doesn't change the fact that it 'theft' is still commonly used by IP Lawyers)
150.101.206.3 14:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't say that it's a common term.  Find someone else reputable and knowledgeable who has said it and cite them.  To do otherwise is original research and that's not what we do here.  --ElKevbo 15:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The main point that is being missed here is that this comment, while potentially relevant to a general discussion of copyright law, is not relevant to this specific case. Worse, its presence conveys a propagandistic implication, which is very inappropriate for an article whose purpose is simply to describe the Dowling case. And that's before we even begin to discuss whether or not it's actually accurate. For these reasons I'm removing it. -- Hux 20:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How common is the use of the term 'theft' to describe intellectual property theft?

message: I've re-edited this section so that it is, I hope, strictly NPOV. Regarding the second paragraph, I searched all the cases that have cited Dowling and have found none that do so with regard to any general equation of copyright infringement and theft. If I missed any then please update the article as this information would certainly be relevant. -- Hux 18:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Significance of the case" section