It's worth pointing out (I can't edit my previous comment) I was just responding to the one issue, and the problem is more nuanced... for example: - The law wa

It's worth pointing out (I can't edit my previous comment) I was just responding to the one issue, and the problem is more nuanced... for example: - The law wasn't really reconsidered to deal with copyright infringement. It was changed to deal with situations where you broke into a computer and took copies of data (interesting to note that this was not actually a new issue at the time; if you broke into someone's office and took photos of data they couldn't charge you with theft - the reason it was changed this time I am not sure on, probably just the prevailing mood). - Quite how much the extent of information loss on a public thing like an image (for which you have to undertake no infiltration or transformative process to recover) applies is largely untested, because this stuff is broadly dealt with under copyright infringement - The extent to which money - both loss of, and the making of (by the infringer) - comes into it is undetermined. - This is not a new change. It happened years ago (as in at least the 90's, perhaps before). The real bottom line is that much of our laws are inadequate in dealing with the internet. :) But; "theft" is no longer defined, in the UK at least, as the GP indicated.