[stcg]

Also in these transitive definitions, stealing is about taking. And in the case of piracy (communicating information to others without permission of the original source), nothing is taken.

The person that came up with the idea still has it. The photographer still has the picture. The programmer still has the program.

It's just about what another person may do with it, the one receiving the picture. May they also send it to someone else? We could have different ideas about that, but calling it "stealing" is inaccurate.

[lesostep]

>> And in the case of piracy (communicating information to others without permission of the original source), nothing is taken.

I'd like to add, that revoking a license is about taking someone access away. Only one side is taking something and it's not the pirates.

[photonerd]

Taking can simply mean “to gain or acquire”. So, once again, incorrect. Sorry.

I’m sympathetic to the moral argument you’re making—though when the raw goods are digital too I think it’s an impractical & ill conceived one—but both legally AND linguistically… it’s incorrect

[autoexec]

Which dictionary defines taking as simply gaining or acquiring something? If you "take" something from someone else it generally means that they no longer have what you took.

This is all really pretty simple: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4

Also, (at least in the US) legally copyright infringement is distinct from stealing.

[ben_w]

Hot take, take a photo, take part, take the bus, take a left, take a shower, take pride in your work, take a joke, take something apart, take my word for it, take a while, take an oath. Being over precious about definitions is unwise.

Also, from https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/take

Verb, 1, To get into one's hands, possession, or control, with or without force.

[jasonjayr]

This use of 'take' is an endless source of dad jokes, of course.

Child: "I'm going to go take a shower"

Dad: "Make sure you put it back when you're done."

[worthless-trash]

A new legend, was born.

[bcrosby95]

Is taking a picture of someone kidnapping?

[ben_w]

Curious choice of example. I know what you mean of course, but the point is words shift meaning.

For a counter-example connected to your choice, I was recently made aware of the Latin word for "to abduct", and how that word may well be why it took so long for spousal abuse to become recognised as an offence — to paraphrase your own question to demonstrate how this goes very wrong, how can you "abduct" someone you live with?

[gpm]

Depends on who you ask

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8380/did-some-c...

[stcg]

Let's say Alice took a photograph and sends a copy of it to Bob.

Are you then saying that when Bob sends another copy to Charlie, Bob is taking something? What is Bob taking?

[photonerd]

Charlie certainly was (he took a copy from Bob).

Bob is the distributor in this context however. In most Berne convention states he broke copyright law (technically, but nothing would happen)

Together Bob & Charlie gained or acquired a picture produced by Alice’s work effort that was unauthorized.

That’s stealing. Is it a big deal? Probably not. Still stealing.

[kthejoker2]

So close and then the stealing part slipped back in.

We have a separate term already for the right to copy something - copyright.

We have a term for copying something without that right- copyright infringement.

Not theft. Copyright infringement.

[Nursie]

Alice still has it, so it’s not stealing as commonly understood.

I’d say the opposite - it could still be a huge deal to Alice, but it doesn’t meet the definition of stealing or theft.

[jdright]

as you said, he broke copyright law. that is copyright infringement, it is not theft.

[28304283409234]

Say one counterfeits a hundred dollar bill perfectly. Does he steal? Say he is able to do this in large quantities. Does he steal? You still have you hundred dollar bill. No loss to you right? Wrong. Your money’s worth is lessened by the counterfeiting, the copying. That is what they mean by stealing: you are decreasing the value of their products by providing identical copies outside of their control.

[idle_zealot]

You're right that counterfeiting devalues currency, but that doesn't make it stealing. Nobody would refer to counterfeit currency as "stolen".

[28304283409234]

Alrighty. So copying movies is fraud. Not theft or piracy.

[gpm]

Fraud involves lying, copyright infringement doesn't necessarily.

Copying movies is copying things congress said you can't, a crime distinct from both theft and fraud.

Piracy has for whatever reason been co-opted to refer to copying despite that having no relationship to piracy on the high seas, but no one is playing linguistic games to argue that they're the same thing so whatever.

[hooverd]

It's only fraud if you sell them as genuine?

[maweki]

By that definition, whenever I create (on my own) a product that is both superior and cheaper than a competitor's offering, lessening the value of their product, it is stealing.

[growse]

There are actually people who reason like this. I remember being struck by this attitude when reading Bloomberg's book - effectively morally eqivocating business competition with stealing food out of their children's mouths.

[Sakos]

Unfortunately, businesses actually think this way. See any number of lawsuits based on this kind of thinking.

[28304283409234]

This is exactly what people are saying about any number of innovations!

[jonhohle]

If Alice breaks Bob’s leg, does she steal his mobility? Sure, but criminally she’d be charged with assault or battery or both.

Likewise, the legal definition of theft or stealing does not apply to copyright infringement despite decades long campaigns to get the public to believe that to ge the case. Relatedly, there are similar campaigns to redefine violence as something that offends someone.

[Trombone12]

Since value is only defined by what people are willing to pay for it, and lacking any extra common rules, these acts of copying simply signal not accepting the demanded price: so the value claimed by the owner was not the actual value, thus they have lost only their self-deception about the value.

[npoc]

If you've managed to create a perfect hundred dollar bill then you've done nothing different to what the bank did. Are both of you stealing?

One way of looking at it is that the banks didn't have to expend a tiny fraction of $100 worth of effort to obtain the dollar bill, whereas any normal person would have to. The question is does the bank deserve that $100? Especially at a cost to everyone else (who are largely unaware/tricked).

Personally I'd class that as "fraud" but it all comes under a similar umbrella.

Theft is taking something you don't deserve, without the other party's consent.

Fraud is taking something you don't deserve, with the other party's _misplaced_ consent.

So yes, in the case of copying music for example, I agree - you're copying someone's idea, which is essentially taking the product of their work without their consent. Their work is no longer scarce, and so loses half its value. It's not really any different to stealing half the money they've worked for, other than that it seems almost impossible to stop you without creating paradoxes such as this topic.

It's detrimental as they no longer have the same incentive to do that work and so society doesn't progress.

You've taken the reward from the person that did the work and shared it amongst the whole of society who didn't work for it. It's pure socialism - and we can see the effects of it in the quality of modern music.

[tacocataco]

Banks wish money into existence with fractional reserve banking. Sounds like counterfeit to me!

[28304283409234]

No, it is lawful. So not stealing. That is illegal. It may not be fair though. But it is lawful. Complain to your liberal government rep.