Well, you don't pay for a gift, you don't pay if you borrow something, and neither of those are theft. So, we must conclude that "not paying for it" does not necessarily mean "theft".Buretsu said:Hate to break it to you, mate, but that's a rather textbook definition of 'theft'.
Also...
Yes, he misquoted, but that's exactly what my point was.Buretsu said:Umm, you might want to check your quoting, because you're giving me credit for something I never said.Dryk said:He's not trying to do any of those things, he's trying to teach you how to stop undermining your argument. They may be similar, and equally wrong, but they are not the same and insisting that they are does nothing but harm your position.Buretsu said:Justify, twist, quote and moralize all you want - to me, taking and using a copy of digital media you didn't pay for means you stole it. Having not taken a physical copy - box, disk etc - doesn't change that; just means you stole directly from the developer rather than the retail store. Which carries much, much less risk and penalty for being caught, which really boils down to why it happens - people too afraid of real-world penalty so they use a system which makes them harder to be caught and punished, and then their own sense of morality by swinging into denial.
I hate thieves, but I really hate thieves who refuse to admit their wrongdoings, especially in this case where they up-front admit to doing it, but refuse to acknowledge it as a crime, or at the very least, something immoral and wrong.
You'll never convince me otherwise, and frankly I someone is a despicable person for, again, trying to make it sound 'better' at best or 'a-okay' at worst.
And it is again. By sweeping generalizations and not getting definitions straight, you do nothing but weaken your own position.