[photonerd]

Incorrect.

You’re using one of the intransitive definitions but general speaking it’s the transitive forms that apply to digital content, ideas, information, etc.

1. to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully

2. to take away by force or unjust means

3. to take surreptitiously or without permission

You may not want stealing to mean that… but that’s irrelevant to reality.

[cesaref]

The point is that stealing has traditionally meant denying the rightful owner the thing that has been stolen. What is going on here is that a copy has been made without permission - piracy is copyright infringement, this is different to stealing.

https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html#:~:t....

Now there has been a lot of effort by the media industry to equate copyright infringement with stealing, I think because the public at large doesn't really understand infringement as a terrible thing. Stealing appears in the 10 commandments, so in our judeo christian societies it's a home run to get 'right thinking' people on side.

[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

[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.

[Blahah]

Your definition supports the OP. All three require 'taking', which doesn't happen with copying

[photonerd]

Taking can simply mean “to gain or acquire”.

If that’s your argument… it’s unsound linguistics and legally.

[123pie123]

people are not taking anything, they're copying

[photonerd]

Copying is “gaining or acquiring” so would come under “taking”, sorry.