Comment by matheusmoreira

We're citing and discussing the precise definitions of specific legal terms. Your counterargument is to point out the colloquial and out of context usage of words.

I already replied to the argument you cited. It's already been explained to you. Even the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.

If I really wanted to be pedantic, I would start claiming that it's all the english expressions you cited that are weird and make no sense at first glance.

I don't "take pleasure in something", I derive pleasure from something. The pleasure is obviously not contained in the object or activity. It's not even a real thing that can be taken. Pleasure is just the way my mind reacts when I engage with an object or in an activity I enjoy. A feeling spontaneously generated from something else.

I don't "take interest in something", I develop an interest in something. The subject did not contain the interest, it just spontaneously appeared in my mind after I considered the subject, leading me to want to know more.

The detail that makes these expressions work is the word "in". The places pleasure and interest are taken from are actually left unspecified. What this means is people "take" pleasure and interest from the intangible abstract world and place them in their minds over the course of engaging with an object or activity. I can definitely empathize with the thought process that produced these weird colloquial expressions.

But who am I to question the meaning of english words anyway? I'm not even a native. That's why I cite authorities such as the Supreme Court of the United States. They say copyright infringement is not strictly equivalent to theft. Courts have ruled that it's not even strictly equivalent to commercial loss. All that makes sense and I believe them.

This really should mark the end of this discussion.