"Kevin Wayne Williams" <kww.nihongo@verizon.nut> wrote in message

> It's technically closer to tresspass,

And ? It's universally illegal to trespass ? Why would that be ?
In my country, in many cases, it's still illegal to enclose and prevent
people from trespassing. In the UK too, ask Madonna.
It's illegal to close the access to the sea to people under the pretext you
consider you *own* it, big rich pricks have had to destroy their tacky
villas on the riviera. The list makes 10 000 pages.

>but the differences are too subtle
> for Kuri to understand, so I dumbed it down for him.

You're dumber than me as you perceive only 2 colors : black and white, theft
and property.

> What practical difference do you see that is so damnably important,
> anyway? The infringer is unjustly enriched, and the infringee is
> unjustly deprived of income.

Your infringee is justly deprived of an injust income.

Maybe you could read a high school level (primary school level) book about
the definition of property and the source of it.
You are really limitated if you cannot get there is not one clear cut
definition. There are guys that say that property is the land that God gave
them (Israeli definition), those that say it's the land you were the first
white guy to enclose (American definition, cf most of the US), those that
say it belong to the first inhabitants, those say it's the land your bum is
sitting one (American definition too...), those that say the land belong to
everybody (used to be 90% of the culture of the world)....and many position
in between.

About intellectual property, I won't even start. That's not at your level.

I understand it's hard for you to get that *property* exist only as a
tolerance by the society, that it is evolutive and laws are also evolutive.

Kuri