AndyFromMonday said:
TO ALL THE PEOPLE WHO QUOTED ME, ALL TWENTY SEVEN OF YOU:
I CANNOT spend another few hours attempting to debunk everything that has been said. The comments are to long and it's becoming a chore. I'll just quote Dowling v. United States, a 1985 case regarding copyright infringement:
"...interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: ... 'an infringer of the copyright.' ...
The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud."
Judicial precedent does not equal legislation. This particular interpretation, from 1985, was not tackling the same issues, products, or media that are available and in question today. I'd also like to think it possible that our ideas of intellectual property may have evolved to change with the times a bit over the last TWENTY-FIVE YEARS.
Even so, the last quoted portion of the decision indicates that it CAN be linked. The judge simply goes on to state that it's clearly more complex than "run of the mill" theft, conversion, or fraud. It doesn't so cleanly toss it from the category, and your continued assertion of this point isn't making it more true.
To recall my earlier post to you, with the added information that your definition is apparently based on decades-old judicial decisions from an era that didn't have world-wide, easy-access internet used to distribute music, video, games, text, and images without the need of any physical medium.
SELF-QUOTE:
See, your problem with this line of thinking is very simple and easy to point out:
You are basing your definition of "theft" solely on its effect on the victim--namely, whether or not that person is "deprived of property." This creates a needlessly limited and self-serving definition, forcing a false dichotomy.
Now, certainly, some crimes have PORTIONS of their definitions that are based on what happened to the victim--take, for instance, "murder" versus "attempted murder," being based on whether or not the victim died. (The penalties for both crimes, however, are very, very similar. Why? Because there is just no reason to give someone a lesser sentence simply because he happens to be a BAD murderer, or because the victim got lucky.)
But additionally, there are components in the definition of every crime that depend on the act that the PERPETRATOR committed, regardless of the result. "Premeditated murder" is thus differentiated from the classic "crime of passion," not based on what happened to the victim, but based on how the murderer went about his or her business.
So, in this case, you're leaving out half of the definition. Here are both halves, presented separately so you can see the contrast:
1) Victim-centric definition: Stealing is an act that deprives another person of his/her property.
2) Offender-centric definition: Stealing is an act by which a person receives property that belongs to someone else, without first securing permission.
