Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
If it's "theft," why isn't it prosecuted as theft, in relation to the dollar value of what was "stolen?"
If you make a copy, you haven't "taken" anything. Which is probably why copyright infringement is not prosecuted as "theft," even in those cases where it's a criminal, rather than civil, violation.
Part of the reason these discussions often break down is refusal to agree on a vocabulary. Some people want to use the word "theft" to mean "unauthorized use," possibly with the codicil, "to someone else's detriment," and others want to restrict it to the legal definition.
|
Per your apparent definition, 'theft of services' would not be theft because you haven't "taken" anything. Sorry, but that's not generally the case.
The exact legal definition depends on the jurisdiction (among other variables) but in general it's taking property or receiving services which you are not authorized to take. There's nothing in it about depriving the 'owner' of the property of it's use, the act of theft is defined in relation to *your* authorization to take the property. So making an unauthorized copy *is* theft. (And I'm pretty sure I remember it being prosecuted as such, although rarely-and I really don't remember the outcome.)
As for why it's more often prosecuted as copyright infringement, I think that's because the copyright holders are simply interested in having the act judged illegal, they really don't care what the charge is. And it's probably easier to prosecute it as copyright infringement than as theft. So I suspect the choice is a practical matter rather than a 'definition'.