You're basically saying I'm being too pedantic. I recognized that in my initial comment as a potential criticism. I did so for precisely the reasons you have b

You're basically saying I'm being too pedantic. I recognized that in my initial comment as a potential criticism. I did so for precisely the reasons you have brought up. Why? Because I understand terms can have colloquial and technical meanings. But this does not imply that we shouldn't call attention to technicalities, particularly if it's with respect to an issue one thinks is important. However, you seem to be arguing that even a technical application of theft is applicable to IP. I don't know how to disagree with that without diving into tedious details about what makes "ownership" a viable concept in the first place. Kinsella addresses it in the source I cited in a previous comment. So I defer.