See the main problem I see between your example and most of the others is... the people coming to you are asking for help and they know they don't have the exact information. So helping them is fairly easy, they don't think they're experts. Most others are giving examples that are dealing with those higher up the food chain or are from people sure of their own knowledge and simply need the tech to implement their grand plan
Managers are the same the world over. They always want impossible things done; as it happens I work on library systems so I'm also a techie. But the other social (public interaction) side of my work has informed my relation with the aforementioned managers.
Now while there are diplomatic ways to go about this sort of thing that isn't confrontational most folks drawn to this industry from my experience aren't all that fond of diplomacy. If we were more socially skilled we'd be more interested in social events with the rest of humanity, instead we stick to our own because we're understood without having to do a stupid dance. So, yes, telling someone they're asking the wrong question doesn't necessarily always have to be "your wrong, heres why" it usually is pretty close to that. Personally I usually answer with "no and yes" when the way the question is currently phrased is wrong but what they really mean to be asking is right. This usually then opens up the conversation to what they really need or they get frustrated and leave me alone which is fine with me.
Your approach is a good one, the "You're wrong and here's why" approach is a bad one, it's not only managers that it rubs up the wrong but colleagues as well. Even us geeks need the people around us to get things done. This is more efficient if they don't think of us as annoying pedants.
I mean when I understand the information they are seeking is not the answer to the question. I can't think of any good examples at the moment, but it happens a few times a month to me.
When this happens I almost always understand what they want, it's just that I am so compelled to answer their first question that I only avoid doing so by notifying them of the problem. I recently got so I could answer the correct question after that (first I just answered, then I just told them I didn't like the question, now I tell them I don't like the question and give them the information they want, I might one day get to the level where I just answer what they meant to ask).
Then I apologise for many of my remarks in this thread, however I would reiterate that instead of correcting people it's usually better to repeat or rephrase the question. Correcting people often just annoys them. I learned this the hard way.
Yeah, I've gotten to the level know when someone asks me the 'wrong' question I now answer "You're not asking me the right question". I used to answer it.
That's what politicians and senior managers do when asked awkward questions that they can't (or don't want to) answer. I hate that trait, if you can't answer my question don't tell me it's the wrong question tell me that you don't know the answer. If you do that I'll respect you for being honest, if you say "that's not the right question" I'll distrust you for being a slimy git.
I think you just provided a good example of the point being made. The person you responded too was talking about a situation where a person asks a question that doesn't parse properly. I think most good programmers probably know exactly what he's talking about. People are constantly using words incorrectly and making statements that don't reflect what they want to say at all.
So ask them politely to repeat the question and\or clarify what they mean, correcting people only annoys them. I used to do it a lot myself, it's only since I changed careers and had to force myself to stop did I realise how much of a prick I was being. Now I'm in a job that where if I correct some one, no matter how stupid the question I raise their hackles and can't help them.
To programmers we just feel this natural compulsion to correct people when this happens. It's often misunderstood though or people see it as being prickish in general.
That's because constantly correcting people makes people feel you're an annoying pedant with nothing better to do. If you know what they meant, there's no need to correct them, just give them the answer to the question they misspoke. If you didn't understand ask them to repeat or clarify. Don't treat them as idiots by saying "You're not asking me the right question".
How hard is it for you to be a charitable person and not get mad at them for innocently correcting a bad question?
As I've said in a number of sibling posts, I'm a librarian, I get bad questions all the time. However, none are wrong. People are giving me the information they have so that I can supply the answer, sure clarify dig below the surface to get what the person wants, even ask questions of your own, but never tell someone they are asking the wrong question or the get annoyed and you end up being unable to help, and string a confrontation.
I didn't clarify the question. The user asked a perfectly clear question. It was just the wrong one--it wasn't what he needed. I clarified what he actually wanted and supplied the *right* question.
I'm a librarian, I know a wrong question when I see one, in your example you clarified the users needs without challenging them, and supplied the answer. What you didn't do (and if you really want to help your user\customer\reader\student) is annoy them by starting up a confrontation, or annoy the customer by refusing their question. To me that's what it appeared the OP was doing.
If I'm asked "I want that book with the green cover" I don't tell the student that he's asking the wrong question, I ask him for a title or author. These are often in short supply, so I ask what course he's on. Let's say he's doing a plumbing course, I then ask if perhaps he wants the course core text, or a specific subject etc. Eventually we find that he wants a book on heating and water supply, so we go to the shelves and find a good book on that subject which may or may not have a green cover.
At no point has my student "asked the wrong question" at each stage he's told me what he knows at that point. It might not have been the best question* but it sure as hell wasn't a wrog question, because it's far better than no questions at all.
*The best question for me is I this book by these authors and here's the ISBN; I don't get that much because if you know those facts you can probably use the catalogue and find the book yourself.
One of the senior VPs at my company (SteveSi, MSFT) does this. You ask him a simple, direct question and he'll make up his own question instead and answer that, often leaving you, at the end, still wondering what the answer to your question was.
I can't tell if it's a brilliant strategy (only say what you want to say) or a horrible one (you piss off people). Either way it discourages asking questions, though.
Call them out on it, I do. I've pointed out to senior directors that they haven't answered the question I've asked them. It's not as if they can sack you, If you're anything like me I'm in a different directorate, and about four layers* of management below the morons, with a good track record of performance from my own managers. She wouldn't last two seconds at any resulting industrial tribunal.
*local government tends to generate layers upon layers of managers who don't seem to serve much purpose.
It's not about answering the question you want to answer. It's about answering the question the asker really wanted to ask but didn't have the knowledge to do so.
User: "How do I edit my Windows registry?"
Me[knowing how someone who doesn't know what they're doing can wreck a Windows machine that way]: "Why do you want to know?"
User: "I need to get my printer working."
Me: "Oh. You probably just need to get the driver you need installed. Here's how you do that..."
What you've said there makes perfect sense, but doesn't tally with the OP. What you did was clarify the question, my sense from the OP saying he "answer[s] "You're not asking me the right question" was unwillingness to answer the question. If I got him wrong, then I of course apologise.
I didn't get that from his post, if someone asked me "if I liked drinking ketchup" I wouldn't start my answer with "You're not asking me the right question" as the OP suggested. I'd ask them to repeat the question, if they insisted on asking the same question I'd ask them to clarify if they meant as a dressing with food or in another way.
Perhaps it's because I'm a librarian and being asked if I liked drinking ketchup is a piece of cake compared to trying to find "the book with the green cover", for the student who has no idea of the title or author and is only vaguely aware of the course he's on.
True, but different situation from what I believe the GP had in mind, which is typically something like
A: Can you build me a screwdriver? (Vague hint about wanting to pound a nail into a board.)
B: Are you wanting to pound a nail into a board? If so, then a hammer's better, I can build you one of those.
Now replace "screwdriver" with "$10,000 high-maintenance program prone to human error" and, well, you get the idea.
I understand your point, but IMO it's still no excuse for not answering the Question. In you example, I would answer question A like this: "I can build you a screwdriver if you really want, but a hammer would be would be a better option because cheaper, easier and quicker to build." That way I've answered the question, made myself look good by presenting more efficient options and if my manager really still wants a screwdriver I can say "I told you so" afterwards. More importantly they opted for the screwdriver over the hammer so it's their arse on the line, not mine as I've kept the email exchange documenting this. If I only give them the option of a hammer and it breaks, it's my arse on the line.
Yeah, I've gotten to the level know when someone asks me the 'wrong' question I now answer "You're not asking me the right question". I used to answer it.
That's what politicians and senior managers do when asked awkward questions that they can't (or don't want to) answer. I hate that trait, if you can't answer my question don't tell me it's the wrong question tell me that you don't know the answer. If you do that I'll respect you for being honest, if you say "that's not the right question" I'll distrust you for being a slimy git.
Depends on whether you were the stronger or the weaker of the disputing parties, I suspect...
Not really, I'm in my mid-twenties, and still only 5'4". Imagine what I was like at 13 or 14.
The other guy asked "with or without weapons" I said with, and dropped hints that I had a gun licence (I live in the UK, you need to be licensed to have a gun here), and chose a location well away from school. Scared the bollocks off him, impressed some of the others and obviously neither of us even turned up. Didn't stop me from taunting him for a no-show the next day though. No one else ever wanted to "settle it after school" again. I survived school by playing smart, not hard. As long as you remember bullies are fundamentally stupid you can somehow survive.
As a European (British) I can honestly say, wtf? British people aren't questioning the NHS, recently they were busy defending it from viscous and inaccurate attacks by US news channels and one deranged fringe conservative politician whose views were disowned by his own party.
Most Europeans don't worship their government in any way, which is WHY European governments offer such services - in order to justify their existence. We see far more unquestioning loyalty (from the supporters of the party in power anyway) from Americans than we do over here you know.
To follow this up, should they win the next election the only budget the Tories (our right-wing party) have promised to ring-fence and protect from cuts is the NHS budget. Sure, we think the NHS could improve (nothing's perfect), but I don't know anyone who wants to go down the American route.
So, it's okay to rescue poor oppressed people, but if they are prosperous and oppressed, we should leave the insane dictator in place,
I live in the UK; judging by/. stories we're some of the most oppressed people in the western world. I'm not to pleased about the political climate in my country either, however the first set of "Liberators" coming to rescue me will be met with Molitov cocktails.
And I'm not even particularly patriotic, but I'm grown up enough to want to deal with my own problems thanks.
> He's obviously a Republican.
Or someone who's actually read the constitution.
I'm not even American, and recall there being a bit in in it about "promotion of the general welfare". Sounds like healthcare would come under that to me.
Good insight, but the phrase is "carrot on a stick", not "carrot and a stick". It doesn't mean offering a choice; it means baiting. The image is of a wagon driver holding a carrot out in front of his donkey so the donkey moves ever forward.
It's carrot and stick here in the UK; you can either beat the donkey with the stick or reward it with a carrot...
I guess usage differs around the english speaking world.
I would hazard a guess that it's the job of someone somewhere to nominate the current US President every year, no matter what. The same for other world leaders; it wouldn't surprise me (on this side of the atlantic) to find out that Gordon Brown had also been nominated, despite doing less than Barrak Obama, although having been in power longer...
The very fact that you think a government funded news organization is some how trustworthy illustrates the extreme gap between the US culture of freedom and distrust of bureaucratic governments and the willingness of the European elite to drink whatever koolaid they are given.
The BBC *is* dubious and any mental midget who thinks otherwise has stuck their pointy head into the sand and refuses to see the world for what it really is.
The BBC isn't directly government funded, it's funded via a licence fee and operates under royal charter that guarantees it's funding for 10 years, so it's not beholden to government at all in-between charter renewal times. This is further evidenced by the fact than no government ever seems to actually like the BBC. Watch this to see the type of hard time they give politicians of all stripes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCo7qbzEX3c
Out of curiosity, how exactly do you deal with bosses who don't care about details and only want to hear good news when you try to tell them that the resources you have and the job that needs to be done are fundamentally incompatible?
Use the word "but" as in "yes I can get your stupidly ambitious project done, but by my not so ambitious deadline, unless you give me this amount of resources". If the first thing your boss hears is a "yes", then you'll probably get your extended deadline or extra resources. If you don't the you can say "I told you so" at the end, and you'll get your way next project. Also, always build some slack into your estimate, so your boss can negotiate you down to a realistic time scale or, even better, you can beat your deadline making yourself look good.
Damn, as I was writing that part I was thinking I should probably check that:) Neat to read about.
I retract my original statement then and modify it to "That's incredibly unlikely, since only a handful of companies of the millions/billions that have ever existed have survived that long"
Whilst I agree with the point you made, there's more than you might think (21,666 over a hundred years old): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_companies.Remember, the USA is a relatively young country, we have a lot more history this side of the Atlantic. The old joke about Americans thinking a hundred years is a long time whilst Brits think that a hundred miles is a long way has quite a bit of truth to it.
...intangible[sic] property, and therefor cannot be stolen.
Intangible is spelled correctly.
Perhaps you meant "...intangible property, and therefor[sic] cannot be stolen"?
I wasn't using [sic] to indicate a spelling error, I was using it to indicate uncommon usage; how many people have heard the phrase "intangible property"?
Copyright infringement is that, copyright infringement and *not theft*.
This specious argument has been bandied around by shameless pirates for a long time and it's simply not true.
At least in the UK, the courts have held a clear difference; in the case of Oxford v Moss, the courts ruled that under the 1968 theft act information is not necessarily intangible[sic] property, and therefor cannot be stolen.
Slashdot Mirror
See the main problem I see between your example and most of the others is ... the people coming to you are asking for help and they know they don't have the exact information. So helping them is fairly easy, they don't think they're experts. Most others are giving examples that are dealing with those higher up the food chain or are from people sure of their own knowledge and simply need the tech to implement their grand plan
Managers are the same the world over. They always want impossible things done; as it happens I work on library systems so I'm also a techie. But the other social (public interaction) side of my work has informed my relation with the aforementioned managers.
Now while there are diplomatic ways to go about this sort of thing that isn't confrontational most folks drawn to this industry from my experience aren't all that fond of diplomacy. If we were more socially skilled we'd be more interested in social events with the rest of humanity, instead we stick to our own because we're understood without having to do a stupid dance. So, yes, telling someone they're asking the wrong question doesn't necessarily always have to be "your wrong, heres why" it usually is pretty close to that. Personally I usually answer with "no and yes" when the way the question is currently phrased is wrong but what they really mean to be asking is right. This usually then opens up the conversation to what they really need or they get frustrated and leave me alone which is fine with me.
Your approach is a good one, the "You're wrong and here's why" approach is a bad one, it's not only managers that it rubs up the wrong but colleagues as well. Even us geeks need the people around us to get things done. This is more efficient if they don't think of us as annoying pedants.
mikael_j was interpreting what I said correctly.
I mean when I understand the information they are seeking is not the answer to the question. I can't think of any good examples at the moment, but it happens a few times a month to me.
When this happens I almost always understand what they want, it's just that I am so compelled to answer their first question that I only avoid doing so by notifying them of the problem. I recently got so I could answer the correct question after that (first I just answered, then I just told them I didn't like the question, now I tell them I don't like the question and give them the information they want, I might one day get to the level where I just answer what they meant to ask).
Then I apologise for many of my remarks in this thread, however I would reiterate that instead of correcting people it's usually better to repeat or rephrase the question. Correcting people often just annoys them. I learned this the hard way.
I think you just provided a good example of the point being made. The person you responded too was talking about a situation where a person asks a question that doesn't parse properly. I think most good programmers probably know exactly what he's talking about. People are constantly using words incorrectly and making statements that don't reflect what they want to say at all.
So ask them politely to repeat the question and\or clarify what they mean, correcting people only annoys them. I used to do it a lot myself, it's only since I changed careers and had to force myself to stop did I realise how much of a prick I was being. Now I'm in a job that where if I correct some one, no matter how stupid the question I raise their hackles and can't help them.
To programmers we just feel this natural compulsion to correct people when this happens. It's often misunderstood though or people see it as being prickish in general.
That's because constantly correcting people makes people feel you're an annoying pedant with nothing better to do. If you know what they meant, there's no need to correct them, just give them the answer to the question they misspoke. If you didn't understand ask them to repeat or clarify. Don't treat them as idiots by saying "You're not asking me the right question".
How hard is it for you to be a charitable person and not get mad at them for innocently correcting a bad question?
As I've said in a number of sibling posts, I'm a librarian, I get bad questions all the time. However, none are wrong. People are giving me the information they have so that I can supply the answer, sure clarify dig below the surface to get what the person wants, even ask questions of your own, but never tell someone they are asking the wrong question or the get annoyed and you end up being unable to help, and string a confrontation.
I didn't clarify the question. The user asked a perfectly clear question. It was just the wrong one--it wasn't what he needed. I clarified what he actually wanted and supplied the *right* question.
I'm a librarian, I know a wrong question when I see one, in your example you clarified the users needs without challenging them, and supplied the answer. What you didn't do (and if you really want to help your user\customer\reader\student) is annoy them by starting up a confrontation, or annoy the customer by refusing their question. To me that's what it appeared the OP was doing.
If I'm asked "I want that book with the green cover" I don't tell the student that he's asking the wrong question, I ask him for a title or author. These are often in short supply, so I ask what course he's on. Let's say he's doing a plumbing course, I then ask if perhaps he wants the course core text, or a specific subject etc. Eventually we find that he wants a book on heating and water supply, so we go to the shelves and find a good book on that subject which may or may not have a green cover.
At no point has my student "asked the wrong question" at each stage he's told me what he knows at that point. It might not have been the best question* but it sure as hell wasn't a wrog question, because it's far better than no questions at all.
*The best question for me is I this book by these authors and here's the ISBN; I don't get that much because if you know those facts you can probably use the catalogue and find the book yourself.
I hate that.
One of the senior VPs at my company (SteveSi, MSFT) does this. You ask him a simple, direct question and he'll make up his own question instead and answer that, often leaving you, at the end, still wondering what the answer to your question was.
I can't tell if it's a brilliant strategy (only say what you want to say) or a horrible one (you piss off people). Either way it discourages asking questions, though.
Call them out on it, I do. I've pointed out to senior directors that they haven't answered the question I've asked them. It's not as if they can sack you, If you're anything like me I'm in a different directorate, and about four layers* of management below the morons, with a good track record of performance from my own managers. She wouldn't last two seconds at any resulting industrial tribunal.
*local government tends to generate layers upon layers of managers who don't seem to serve much purpose.
Well then, I am certain you won't mind answering "yes" or "no" when someone asks whether you have stopped collecting child pornography.
I am glad you have principles to which you adhere, even if they don't make any sense.
Answers aren't binary. If asked
whether...[I] have stopped collecting child pornography
, my response would be "I have never, nor do I ever intend to collect Child pornography." How hard was that?
It's not about answering the question you want to answer. It's about answering the question the asker really wanted to ask but didn't have the knowledge to do so.
User: "How do I edit my Windows registry?"
Me[knowing how someone who doesn't know what they're doing can wreck a Windows machine that way]: "Why do you want to know?"
User: "I need to get my printer working."
Me: "Oh. You probably just need to get the driver you need installed. Here's how you do that..."
What you've said there makes perfect sense, but doesn't tally with the OP. What you did was clarify the question, my sense from the OP saying he "answer[s] "You're not asking me the right question" was unwillingness to answer the question. If I got him wrong, then I of course apologise.
I didn't get that from his post, if someone asked me "if I liked drinking ketchup" I wouldn't start my answer with "You're not asking me the right question" as the OP suggested. I'd ask them to repeat the question, if they insisted on asking the same question I'd ask them to clarify if they meant as a dressing with food or in another way.
Perhaps it's because I'm a librarian and being asked if I liked drinking ketchup is a piece of cake compared to trying to find "the book with the green cover", for the student who has no idea of the title or author and is only vaguely aware of the course he's on.
True, but different situation from what I believe the GP had in mind, which is typically something like
Now replace "screwdriver" with "$10,000 high-maintenance program prone to human error" and, well, you get the idea.
I understand your point, but IMO it's still no excuse for not answering the Question. In you example, I would answer question A like this: "I can build you a screwdriver if you really want, but a hammer would be would be a better option because cheaper, easier and quicker to build."
That way I've answered the question, made myself look good by presenting more efficient options and if my manager really still wants a screwdriver I can say "I told you so" afterwards. More importantly they opted for the screwdriver over the hammer so it's their arse on the line, not mine as I've kept the email exchange documenting this. If I only give them the option of a hammer and it breaks, it's my arse on the line.
AHAHA...
Yeah, I've gotten to the level know when someone asks me the 'wrong' question I now answer "You're not asking me the right question". I used to answer it.
That's what politicians and senior managers do when asked awkward questions that they can't (or don't want to) answer. I hate that trait, if you can't answer my question don't tell me it's the wrong question tell me that you don't know the answer. If you do that I'll respect you for being honest, if you say "that's not the right question" I'll distrust you for being a slimy git.
... and used to interconnect medical devices, it'd give a whole new meaning to "blue screen of death"
Why stop at the Hospitals? Use it to connect the Nukes and you'll get the last either BSOD you (or the enite planet) will ever see.
Depends on whether you were the stronger or the weaker of the disputing parties, I suspect...
Not really, I'm in my mid-twenties, and still only 5'4". Imagine what I was like at 13 or 14.
The other guy asked "with or without weapons" I said with, and dropped hints that I had a gun licence (I live in the UK, you need to be licensed to have a gun here), and chose a location well away from school. Scared the bollocks off him, impressed some of the others and obviously neither of us even turned up. Didn't stop me from taunting him for a no-show the next day though. No one else ever wanted to "settle it after school" again. I survived school by playing smart, not hard. As long as you remember bullies are fundamentally stupid you can somehow survive.
what would all the two-bit lawyers do...?
Four could get together for a byte.
As a European (British) I can honestly say, wtf? British people aren't questioning the NHS, recently they were busy defending it from viscous and inaccurate attacks by US news channels and one deranged fringe conservative politician whose views were disowned by his own party.
Most Europeans don't worship their government in any way, which is WHY European governments offer such services - in order to justify their existence. We see far more unquestioning loyalty (from the supporters of the party in power anyway) from Americans than we do over here you know.
To follow this up, should they win the next election the only budget the Tories (our right-wing party) have promised to ring-fence and protect from cuts is the NHS budget. Sure, we think the NHS could improve (nothing's perfect), but I don't know anyone who wants to go down the American route.
So, it's okay to rescue poor oppressed people, but if they are prosperous and oppressed, we should leave the insane dictator in place,
I live in the UK; judging by /. stories we're some of the most oppressed people in the western world. I'm not to pleased about the political climate in my country either, however the first set of "Liberators" coming to rescue me will be met with Molitov cocktails.
And I'm not even particularly patriotic, but I'm grown up enough to want to deal with my own problems thanks.
> He's obviously a Republican. Or someone who's actually read the constitution.
I'm not even American, and recall there being a bit in in it about "promotion of the general welfare". Sounds like healthcare would come under that to me.
Good insight, but the phrase is "carrot on a stick", not "carrot and a stick". It doesn't mean offering a choice; it means baiting. The image is of a wagon driver holding a carrot out in front of his donkey so the donkey moves ever forward.
It's carrot and stick here in the UK; you can either beat the donkey with the stick or reward it with a carrot...
I guess usage differs around the english speaking world.
So why did he get nominated in February again?
I would hazard a guess that it's the job of someone somewhere to nominate the current US President every year, no matter what. The same for other world leaders; it wouldn't surprise me (on this side of the atlantic) to find out that Gordon Brown had also been nominated, despite doing less than Barrak Obama, although having been in power longer...
The very fact that you think a government funded news organization is some how trustworthy illustrates the extreme gap between the US culture of freedom and distrust of bureaucratic governments and the willingness of the European elite to drink whatever koolaid they are given.
The BBC *is* dubious and any mental midget who thinks otherwise has stuck their pointy head into the sand and refuses to see the world for what it really is.
The BBC isn't directly government funded, it's funded via a licence fee and operates under royal charter that guarantees it's funding for 10 years, so it's not beholden to government at all in-between charter renewal times. This is further evidenced by the fact than no government ever seems to actually like the BBC. Watch this to see the type of hard time they give politicians of all stripes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCo7qbzEX3c
Out of curiosity, how exactly do you deal with bosses who don't care about details and only want to hear good news when you try to tell them that the resources you have and the job that needs to be done are fundamentally incompatible?
Use the word "but" as in "yes I can get your stupidly ambitious project done, but by my not so ambitious deadline, unless you give me this amount of resources". If the first thing your boss hears is a "yes", then you'll probably get your extended deadline or extra resources. If you don't the you can say "I told you so" at the end, and you'll get your way next project. Also, always build some slack into your estimate, so your boss can negotiate you down to a realistic time scale or, even better, you can beat your deadline making yourself look good.
Damn, as I was writing that part I was thinking I should probably check that :) Neat to read about.
I retract my original statement then and modify it to "That's incredibly unlikely, since only a handful of companies of the millions/billions that have ever existed have survived that long"
Whilst I agree with the point you made, there's more than you might think (21,666 over a hundred years old): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_companies .Remember, the USA is a relatively young country, we have a lot more history this side of the Atlantic. The old joke about Americans thinking a hundred years is a long time whilst Brits think that a hundred miles is a long way has quite a bit of truth to it.
Technically you're correct, but of course, these companies are actually doing something useful
It can be argued that the City of London Corporation goes back to 1141, and it's hasn't been useful for at least a hundred years... ;-)
...intangible[sic] property, and therefor cannot be stolen.
Intangible is spelled correctly. Perhaps you meant "...intangible property, and therefor[sic] cannot be stolen"?
I wasn't using [sic] to indicate a spelling error, I was using it to indicate uncommon usage; how many people have heard the phrase "intangible property"?
This specious argument has been bandied around by shameless pirates for a long time and it's simply not true.
At least in the UK, the courts have held a clear difference; in the case of Oxford v Moss, the courts ruled that under the 1968 theft act information is not necessarily intangible[sic] property, and therefor cannot be stolen.