3 ms·

> the act or crime of stealing; http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal steal [steel] stole, sto·len, stea

> the act or crime of stealing; http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal steal [steel] stole, sto·len, steal·ing, noun verb (used with object) 1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch. 2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment. ... Some jurisdictions have a much broader definition of theft too, e.g.: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9a.56.020 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9a.56.020 1) "Theft" means: (a) To wrongfully obtain or exert unauthorized control over the property or services of another or the value thereof, with intent to deprive him or her of such property or services; or (b) By color or aid of deception to obtain control over the property or services of another or the value thereof, with intent to deprive him or her of such property or services; or (c) To appropriate lost or misdelivered property or services of another, or the value thereof, with intent to deprive him or her of such property or services. (Emphasis added) The point that is missed when engaging in these word games, of course, is that in common parlance, "theft" is used to mean any act that deprive others of something. In this case, it is the rightful payment for the value provided by the intellectual property that has been appropriated.

e12e 13y ago
> The point that is missed when engaging in these word games, of course, is that in common parlance, "theft" is used to mean any act that deprive others of something. Indeed, all your a,b,c) examples include "with intent to deprive [the owner] of such property or services". And it is a necessary condition for it to be considered theft. If not it is not theft. It might be fraud, but that is different from theft! In particular the sentencing for larceny and theft have traditionally been harsher afaik almost everywhere. Most times, if you simply refuse to pay for something, you can settle up by paying for it (assuming no one else has been deprived of the same thing as a direct result of you not paying) -- and that will be the end of it. Possibly with a fine in extreme cases. > In this case, it is the rightful payment for the value provided by the intellectual property that has been appropriated. The what now? ;-)
- throwawaykf 13y ago
  I'm not sure I get your point...are you saying there was no intent? Here's what I'm trying to say: If you buy a copy, everyone involved in making it gets paid. If you pirate it, they don't get paid. In other words, they were deprived of that payment. I'm sure the legal specifics are quite different, but in common parlance, taking something without permission is theft, even if it's not tangible property (e.g. "he stole my idea".)
  - biehl 13y ago
    Sorry, but you are mistaken. I have a wonderful piece of software on my disk that your are not buying. Are you "depriving" me of that payment? Even more - schoolchildren are regularly copying massive amounts of files - are you (obviously dishonestly) claiming that they have the funds at their disposal to pay for the "in shop" prices of those files?
    - throwawaykf 13y ago
      > I have a wonderful piece of software on my disk that your are not buying. Are you "depriving" me of that payment? I don't understand - have I appropriated that software by any means? Then why would you be owed some payment? > are you (obviously dishonestly) claiming that they have the funds at their disposal to pay for the "in shop" prices of those files? No, I'm claiming that they should not be copying those files. Are you implying that none of those children can get funds for paying for those copies?
  - digler999 13y ago
    That's bullshit. I pirate Springer books that someone else (whoever ripped them had lawful access to them) paid for - no different than when I go to the library and read Springer books that someone else (the library) paid for. The bottom line is: __I'm not paying___. No authors or profiteering publishers are deprived of _any_ payment. They gouged me when I went to school and they continue to gouge students each semester with their new editions that come out each semester of 400 year old subjects (calculus). That's what they need to do to maximize profits. I'm simply a 1-man corporation that needs to maximize my own profits and copying my books happens to be an unpopular corporate decision.

e12e 13y ago

> The point that is missed when engaging in these word games, of course, is that in common parlance, "theft" is used to mean any act that deprive others of something. Indeed, all your a,b,c) examples include "with intent to deprive [the owner] of such property or services". And it is a necessary condition for it to be considered theft. If not it is not theft. It might be fraud, but that is different from theft! In particular the sentencing for larceny and theft have traditionally been harsher afaik almost everywhere. Most times, if you simply refuse to pay for something, you can settle up by paying for it (assuming no one else has been deprived of the same thing as a direct result of you not paying) -- and that will be the end of it. Possibly with a fine in extreme cases. > In this case, it is the rightful payment for the value provided by the intellectual property that has been appropriated. The what now? ;-)

throwawaykf 13y ago
I'm not sure I get your point...are you saying there was no intent? Here's what I'm trying to say: If you buy a copy, everyone involved in making it gets paid. If you pirate it, they don't get paid. In other words, they were deprived of that payment. I'm sure the legal specifics are quite different, but in common parlance, taking something without permission is theft, even if it's not tangible property (e.g. "he stole my idea".)
- biehl 13y ago
  Sorry, but you are mistaken. I have a wonderful piece of software on my disk that your are not buying. Are you "depriving" me of that payment? Even more - schoolchildren are regularly copying massive amounts of files - are you (obviously dishonestly) claiming that they have the funds at their disposal to pay for the "in shop" prices of those files?
  - throwawaykf 13y ago
    > I have a wonderful piece of software on my disk that your are not buying. Are you "depriving" me of that payment? I don't understand - have I appropriated that software by any means? Then why would you be owed some payment? > are you (obviously dishonestly) claiming that they have the funds at their disposal to pay for the "in shop" prices of those files? No, I'm claiming that they should not be copying those files. Are you implying that none of those children can get funds for paying for those copies?
- digler999 13y ago
  That's bullshit. I pirate Springer books that someone else (whoever ripped them had lawful access to them) paid for - no different than when I go to the library and read Springer books that someone else (the library) paid for. The bottom line is: __I'm not paying___. No authors or profiteering publishers are deprived of _any_ payment. They gouged me when I went to school and they continue to gouge students each semester with their new editions that come out each semester of 400 year old subjects (calculus). That's what they need to do to maximize profits. I'm simply a 1-man corporation that needs to maximize my own profits and copying my books happens to be an unpopular corporate decision.