View Single Post
Old 11-16-2011, 09:46 PM   #156
Andrew H.
Grand Master of Flowers
Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Andrew H. ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 2,201
Karma: 8389072
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Naptown
Device: Kindle PW, Kindle 3 (aka Keyboard), iPhone, iPad 3 (not for reading)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellmark View Post

Hell, theft is "the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it". If I download a ebook from someone, I've not deprived anyone of that book. The person I got it from still has their copy, and what ever rights they have to that copy (which could be none, full ownership, or in between like a license to be able to use it with limitations). The only thing that can be argued is that the content owner may not get money from me now if I got it through nonlegit means. But that argument would have to depend on the idea that I wouldn't pay for the item after downloading it, and that I would have paid for it in the first place, which those two completely nullifies the deprivation argument.

So, please, in the future, include a bit more thought into your argument.
That's *a* definition of theft, but it's not the only one. Theft in California requires proof that you " feloniously steal, take, carry, lead, or drive away the personal property of another" - with no "deprivation" requirement at all. Many states also use the model penal code's "exerting unauthorized control" language with "the intent to deprive the owner of any part of the property's value or use."

And a few states still use the "with intent to permanently deprive the owner of any part of the property's value or use."

So you can't assume that there's no theft because the owner still has a copy.

(See also theft of cable services statutes).
Andrew H. is offline   Reply With Quote