Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue_librarian
[Only tangible goods can be "stolen]
It is in most jurisdictions; one of the landmark cases is Oxford vs. Moss. It's certainly used that way in legal circles. |
That's not what the case says, though. It specifically notes that "intangible property" is included in the theft act, but then finds that "confidential information" (i.e., the test answers) are not "intangible property" for purposes of the theft act.
Quote:
That seems to be the Indiana Criminal Code? Regardless of their definition (didn't read too closely) I can quote at least a dozen other codes that use the traditional one. Legal scholars usually do.
|
Yes, there are several variations of theft in the US; about half of them look like this. I'm not sure which definition of theft you mean as the "traditional" one - at common law theft involved unauthorized taking and asportation of personal property (which I think had to be tangible) with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the item's value. But I don't know any jurisdictions that use that definition now.
And there may well be jurisdictions where "criminal copyright infringement" would not be theft. But there are many, including the one where I live, where it clearly *is* theft. It doesn't matter what definition legal scholars use; it does matter in what jurisdiction the acts are performed.
Note that in the US, the vast majority of all criminal prosecutions are done by the individual states (something like 95-98%), with the remaining being federal crimes, assuming the the jurisdictional prerequisites are met.
Because most actions involving copyright violations involve crossing state lines and interstate commerce, however, there is federal jurisdiction; further because the federal copyright statute is more specific than the federal state statute, prosecutions will be brought under the more specific federal copyright statute.
But, at least in my jurisdiction, violating a copyright could certainly be prosecuted as theft.