[skeeter2020]

>> Stealing/theft requires deprivation of property

maybe you should look up the definition of property, which is a set of legally recognized rights over a thing, typically including:

* possession (what you're focusing on)

* use

* exclusion

* transfer

The last 3 seem like they have been breached, in legally that's theft.

[jasomill]

Violation of these rights may be criminal without meeting the strict legal definition of theft.

This can even extend to stealing physical property.

Depending on local laws, stealing a car may not actually be theft if the defendent can prove they intended to return it before the owner got home from work, though it would certainly be considered theft in the colloquial sense of the term, and they would still be guilty of a lesser offense like civil and/or criminal conversion.

[throwawayIche9j]

> Depending on local laws, stealing a car may not actually be theft if the defendent can prove they intended to return it before the owner got home from work

I doubt there's even one place where the law works like that.

[KPGv2]

> I doubt there's even one place where the law works like that.

In a lot of places, that's how it works. A key element of theft is the intent to permanently deprive someone of property.

This is why joyriding isn't classified as auto theft and is instead a lesser offense. It's because joyriding is an intent to temporarily deprive, while GTA is an intent to permanently deprive.

In some jxns (the UK is one), there is a tort called trespass to goods, and an example of this would be "stealing" someone's property to deliver to another location for them to use there. The tort of conversion is similar: interference with someone's property right to treat it as your own (silent as to length of time).

[2ndorderthought]

Yea in the us if someone tries to steal your car and you are in it or threatened by it you can shoot them dead or something like that (ianal) You may have a court day but in many situations no punishment will follow.

[throwawayIche9j]

Theft is not the breach of any property right. It's specifically the deprivation of property without consent. Yes, I have checked the definition in my jurisdiction.

Getting punched in the face also violates rights, yet isn't murder. Murder is specifically about dying.

[rustystump]

You forget that laws are made by people and at anytime they can change interpretations are arbitrary, roe vs wade today but not tomorrow.

People seem to think what ai is today is theft. If enough people agree, it will be theft. Big companies dont like this and push the other way. An objectiveness doesnt exist here. It is too wiggly

[odo1242]

You’re splitting hairs over a definition that isn’t relevant here (theft and copyright infringement are different things) to defend something that even you agree is bad.

[throwawayIche9j]

It isn't splitting hairs. The damages are completely different in nature.

With theft, the entire damage is the deprivation. It could be an heirloom or some other object that may have been entrusted to you, something that can never be replaced, memorabilia of loved ones. Something that you may have needed in your posession to survive (e.g. a car to go to your job).

With a given copyright violation, the damage is that maybe[1] you made less profit than you could have. The potential for profit is not property. Profit isn't guaranteed.

[1] The loss is not certain, because there's no guarantee that the ones consuming the copyrighted content could have even afforded it.