I share the frustation, but I'll explain why I think it's important not to let an issue like that slide.
A lot of the time the copyright debate is fought between people these world views.
1) Copyright opponents define propert as being like a car - something which one person has by denying it to another person.
2) Copyright advocates think of property as a "bundle of rights" enforced by the state. i.e. property is whatever a judge says it to be.
People who insist on calling it theft are steering the debate towards the second definition - that theft is whatever a judge or politician says it is. It's crucial to knock back attempts to do that. That worldview believes the whim of the state is the root of philosophy, and fundamentally correct in its judgement of right and wrong.
Property predates the state. It exists even in states that try to outlaw it. It's a strong algorithm that is useful for the efficient allocation of resources. Intellectual propert is neither a strong algorithm, nor a mechanism that leads to an efficient allocation of resources. It is not property. Intellectual property violations are not theft.
No-one is saying that you're not right, we're just saying that this has been said so many times that it doesn't need saying again.
Anyone who insists that copyright infringement and theft are the same thing isn't someone who has anything useful to add in this debate. Given that why not focus the debate on useful, genuinely contentious areas and solutions, not rehashing an argument that has been had and won over and over again?
(And yes, I know there are people who don't buy into this but by and large they're not reading Hacker News so you're doing nothing to progress the argument on that front repeating it here).
Human interaction is not code. Human discussion is not code. People are not code. Repetition is how people learn and understand things. Seeing a point once makes a person think "oh good point". Seeing many times forces them to think of it in different contexts and different ways. This allows them to understand it better.
Congratulations to you for being around long enough, and seeing this point enough times, that you find it commonplace. I guarantee however that there are plenty of people here who still need to see it. There are lots of people on this site who are very intelligent in many ways who make comments like "you need to protect your patent or you lose it" or "copyright doesn't count unless registered". As long as they exist, this point can be made without it just being echo chamber fodder.
And what determines what is important vs. what is not? Certainly something like spam is pure noise, but what justifies the repetition? I'm trying very hard not to see it as consensual groupthink, but coming up short. I see this in every community: a set of near-sacrosanct 'truths' emerges that inevitably must be defended, and part of that process involves repeating them, often under the guise of 'educating' others.
IMO, the argument is simply being reframed to avoid dealing with the larger and more difficult problem. I'm not interested in avoiding the real issue here -- compensation for creators in the age of easily-copied goods.
If we fix that, the semantics argument won't be an issue. After all, if we have a just system that fairly compensates individuals for creating while providing good incentives for consumers not to infringe, we don't need to nitpick about theft v. infringe.This, to me, serves as a good indication of what is actually important in this issue.
Perhaps the argument is being reframed back and forth, not to avoid an issue, but as proxy to this issue: creators are over-valuing their work and/or copiers undervaluing. The semantics chosen are done so because they reflect the point of view of the speaker. Put a different way: there are 2 ideas of fair out there, each set of semantics represents one idea of fair accurately.
Simple repetition can be a powerful way to get people to change their minds but I suspect in this sort of environment it doesn't work so well as those who disagree simply don't read it once they establish the basic gist and just skip the post. As a result it's not really being repeated to them in any way that matters.
My experience tends to be that if I've not won someone over with one particular argument then my best tack is to try something else they might be more responsive to rather than just keep repeating myself.
But maybe the real issue is that I hope that HN might be a source of intelligent discussion on the subject with an attempt to find interesting and / or practical solutions to the problems raised rather than a more straight forward continual reassertion of views that could frankly be carried out by a series of Python scripts.
I think it needs to be said as often as people continue prevaricating by using the word 'theft'.
Semantic argument can become tedious and repetitive, but it's necessary for any more substantive argument to proceed. If there's no mutual agreement on what the terminology represents, then the participants of the discussion are effectively speaking separate languages, and they will be unable to 'access' each other's reasoning.
Sometimes, the semantic dispute is caused by an intentional attempt to confound terminology in order to make two things seem more similar than they otherwise are. Calling this out is appropriate and necessary every time it happens.
Possibly because the system as it exists now might be perceived as near-optimal for the average user: some people fund creative works that others enjoy for free. Thus, the discussion is consistently trainwrecked into one of semantics (sometimes, with a bit of a victim mentality thrown in) because some people would like the system to continue as is. Real solutions to this problem are very hard, and I can't think of one in which someone doesn't get screwed.
Then again, it is quite refreshing to see so many people defend the purity of the English language.
Also, those who want people to want everyone to adopt (2) are those who have the eyes and ears of both a large amount of the populace--how many videos have you rented or bought that have an unskippable intro telling you in big flashing grungy type that "you wouldn't steal a car...so you shouldn't make illegal downloads"--and of the politicians who make laws and sign treaties.
The US courts, by and large, have been fairly sensible on this so far, thank God.
So I'll say it again: Digital copying is not theft.
A lot of the time the copyright debate is fought between people these world views.
1) Copyright opponents define propert as being like a car - something which one person has by denying it to another person.
2) Copyright advocates think of property as a "bundle of rights" enforced by the state. i.e. property is whatever a judge says it to be.
People who insist on calling it theft are steering the debate towards the second definition - that theft is whatever a judge or politician says it is. It's crucial to knock back attempts to do that. That worldview believes the whim of the state is the root of philosophy, and fundamentally correct in its judgement of right and wrong.
Property predates the state. It exists even in states that try to outlaw it. It's a strong algorithm that is useful for the efficient allocation of resources. Intellectual propert is neither a strong algorithm, nor a mechanism that leads to an efficient allocation of resources. It is not property. Intellectual property violations are not theft.