[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.