[Morlac]

Originally Posted by macminer

I really cannot believe that people can be so brainless.

No call for insults.

I argue the following with the full understanding that none of this even applies to the argument at hand -- which deals with copyright and digital copying, not the movement of physical items.

It seems that abstract reasoning is futile when emotions take over reasoning, so let's give an example. At my home, when my son takes my dictionary without being allowed to, he is certainly not stealing my dictionary. He is just using it without my permission. It may happen that I actually need that dictionary and go searching for it, only to find it on his desk and maybe I am even furious because of that, but there's no way I can call this stealing.

You feel that way because your son has a relationship with you. Say that a stranger off the street found an unaccountable urge for a dictionary (perhaps he was stuck on a hard crossword puzzle?) and walked into your home to use your dictionary. Would you feel the same way?

Or perhaps you feel that way because a dictionary has low intrinsic value. Say that your son took your laptop instead. Still feel the same way?

Or perhaps the factor is that your son lives with you. Say that he took it with him as he was moving to Australia to go to university. He'll be back eventually, he's just borrowing it, right?

Originally Posted by macminer

So, stealing certainly does not mean "taking something which you are not allowed to take". An adequate definition of stealing must include both taking away something that causes permanent deprivation and an actual intention to deprive the owner of that object.

No, it does not necessarily mean that it "must include" those characteristics. I'd wager that many thieves justify their theft with the notion that they are only borrowing and fully intend to return the item/money/whatsit ... someday. A car thief probably does not have that intention. Someone who embezzles money from their employer or takes things from family and friends to pawn to support a drug/gambling habit certainly might fully intend to return it someday. Shall all theft cases await (a) the death of the owner, or (b) the destruction of the item, or (c) the end of time, so that we may best judge whether the owner has been "permanently deprived" of their property?

Originally Posted by macminer

It is easy to give many other situations when someone takes away your property without your consent and this is not considered theft either in legal or ethical terms. For example, if you left your book on the bus or train, would you say it must remain there forever or any person that removes it is considered a thief? Or a means of transport is urgently needed (for example, because of some natural disaster) and somebody takes my car without my permission to save their life. This also would not be considered theft in most legal systems and probably in all ethical systems, since sustaining/rescuing life is a higher value than guarding private property.

There are almost always exceptions in the law. That doesn't mean that the law itself is invalid or that simplified statements of the law are valueless.

Your first case concerns lost or abandoned property in a public place. Say I leave my book on my front lawn (say it's in a plastic bag so weather isn't an immediate concern). It's not "abandoned" -- it's on my property. It may be lost, but again, it's on my property. You have no right to come onto my property and help yourself to the book.

The second is not so much a matter of the act not being considered theft as the authorities and/or the owner choosing not to prosecute. There's a difference.

Originally Posted by macminer

Incidentally, when my camera was stolen from me (physically taken by somebody out of my pocket on a crowded tram) in Rome, the Italian Police tried to convince me this was actually something normal there and that I shouldn't even expect them to accept a notification / write a report. So maybe I am entirely wrong and in Italy taking something from somebody is always considered theft, but at the same time theft is accepted as normal behavior even by the police

I'm not quite sure what the evidentiary value of your anecdote is meant to be. Clearly you were unhappy and upset when your property was taken from you. Clearly the police did not give you the kind of action you expected or wanted in response to the theft. Would it be better if the thief intended to mail your camera back to you in six months after he'd had an opportunity to take some pictures that would win him a contest prize that would allow him to pay for the operation that might save his second cousin's life?