It isn't theft. Theft, by definition ,requires that the criminal deprive someone of something. You can't steal a digital product.
For example, if you steal my car, I can't drive my car. That is theft. Downloading episodes of Magnum PI isn't theft.
It isn't copyright infringement, because that (by definition) covers the uncompensated reproduction and sale of an intellectual property. Training a LLM with an e-book doesn't copy or sell the book.
I think that you need to go and read some definitions, because you are groping in the dark for reasons to object and using words you don't actually understand.
If you want to advocate for new laws that govern how people can create and run computer programs on hardware they own, then advocate for that. You will certainly have a lot of company.
That's never been true. If you want to make a philosophical argument that digital property shouldn't be considered property, fine. But the law is clear that digital assets can be stolen.
Look, guy, it is a matter of definition. Different words mean different things.
If the thief took every copy and the lawful owner could not use the digital product, then that would be theft. If the bad guy just made unauthorized copies or used the digital data (or whatever) without a license, then it isn't theft.
The reason that the distinction matters is because harm must be assessed when rendering legal judgement by the courts. If I download a copy of Magnum PI, I have not depraved anyone of the use or enjoyment of the episode. If I stole an episode with ninjas then no network in the world could use it until it was recovered, probably by men with guns.
These are not the same. The damages are not the same.
Gizortnik, this is well understood law. It isn't even debated in legal circles. It was debated to exhaustion at around the time of printed sheet music, more than 200 years ago.
You really are showing your profound ignorance in this specific issue.
You're trying to cover-up that you just had to make a correction to what your saying, while being dismissive of shit that is absolutely true.
You just admitted that, yes, digital assets can be stolen. Originally you said it wasn't possible. It is, and you admit it. Copying without a license isn't theft, and I know the difference. You conflated them.
If I download a copy of Magnum PI, I have not depraved anyone of the use or enjoyment of the episode. If I stole an episode with ninjas then no network in the world could use it until it was recovered, probably by men with guns.
This is how you are conflating them. How did you get that download? You can steal files from a system. If you record it on your phone and download it, or if someone screen records it from their TV and sends you a copy, neither of those are theft.
Neither of those has anything to do with "deprivation". That's not an element of theft. Just because you stole a car from someone's drive way while they were asleep, and returned it before they woke up, it doesn't mean that it doesn't count as theft. The illegal and consensual use of the thing is normally enough for theft.
Bloke, I gave a definition and a case study in my original post. I've stuck to it consistently.
If you return a car, then you borrowed it, rather than stole it. Even if the judge rules that you did steal it (it was unusable by the owner while you had it) then the damages are significantly different. The car was stolen, but the damage has been lessened (remedied) by the return of the property. This will be reflected in sentencing. This is why there is a huge range of sentences available to a judge. All damages are not equal.
Here is the major difference between digital products and physical products; and why it is much more difficult to steal a digital product.
There is no scarcity of digital products. Everyone on earth can have a copy, and it doesn't deprive anyone else of anything.
COPYING something isn't the same as STEALING something. I'm sorry you are having trouble with this.
Seriously, guy. Perhaps my explanation was imperfect, but this is literally the first year Law on torts.
To determine what offence was committed, an assessment of the damages must be made. In what way or ways was the offended party damaged or harmed? Specifically.
Depriving you of your work truck so you can't get transport to work and you can't do your job is different from making photocopies of your novel.
I don't know how to make it any more clear. I apologize that I don't have the ability to reach you with reason and convey basic, industry standard definitions that have been in use for more than a century.
Oh, Gizortnik. Here we go.
It isn't theft. Theft, by definition ,requires that the criminal deprive someone of something. You can't steal a digital product.
For example, if you steal my car, I can't drive my car. That is theft. Downloading episodes of Magnum PI isn't theft.
It isn't copyright infringement, because that (by definition) covers the uncompensated reproduction and sale of an intellectual property. Training a LLM with an e-book doesn't copy or sell the book.
I think that you need to go and read some definitions, because you are groping in the dark for reasons to object and using words you don't actually understand.
If you want to advocate for new laws that govern how people can create and run computer programs on hardware they own, then advocate for that. You will certainly have a lot of company.
That's never been true. If you want to make a philosophical argument that digital property shouldn't be considered property, fine. But the law is clear that digital assets can be stolen.
Look, guy, it is a matter of definition. Different words mean different things.
If the thief took every copy and the lawful owner could not use the digital product, then that would be theft. If the bad guy just made unauthorized copies or used the digital data (or whatever) without a license, then it isn't theft.
The reason that the distinction matters is because harm must be assessed when rendering legal judgement by the courts. If I download a copy of Magnum PI, I have not depraved anyone of the use or enjoyment of the episode. If I stole an episode with ninjas then no network in the world could use it until it was recovered, probably by men with guns.
These are not the same. The damages are not the same.
Gizortnik, this is well understood law. It isn't even debated in legal circles. It was debated to exhaustion at around the time of printed sheet music, more than 200 years ago.
You really are showing your profound ignorance in this specific issue.
You're trying to cover-up that you just had to make a correction to what your saying, while being dismissive of shit that is absolutely true.
You just admitted that, yes, digital assets can be stolen. Originally you said it wasn't possible. It is, and you admit it. Copying without a license isn't theft, and I know the difference. You conflated them.
This is how you are conflating them. How did you get that download? You can steal files from a system. If you record it on your phone and download it, or if someone screen records it from their TV and sends you a copy, neither of those are theft.
Neither of those has anything to do with "deprivation". That's not an element of theft. Just because you stole a car from someone's drive way while they were asleep, and returned it before they woke up, it doesn't mean that it doesn't count as theft. The illegal and consensual use of the thing is normally enough for theft.
Bloke, I gave a definition and a case study in my original post. I've stuck to it consistently.
If you return a car, then you borrowed it, rather than stole it. Even if the judge rules that you did steal it (it was unusable by the owner while you had it) then the damages are significantly different. The car was stolen, but the damage has been lessened (remedied) by the return of the property. This will be reflected in sentencing. This is why there is a huge range of sentences available to a judge. All damages are not equal.
Here is the major difference between digital products and physical products; and why it is much more difficult to steal a digital product.
There is no scarcity of digital products. Everyone on earth can have a copy, and it doesn't deprive anyone else of anything.
COPYING something isn't the same as STEALING something. I'm sorry you are having trouble with this.
Seriously, guy. Perhaps my explanation was imperfect, but this is literally the first year Law on torts.
To determine what offence was committed, an assessment of the damages must be made. In what way or ways was the offended party damaged or harmed? Specifically.
Depriving you of your work truck so you can't get transport to work and you can't do your job is different from making photocopies of your novel.
I don't know how to make it any more clear. I apologize that I don't have the ability to reach you with reason and convey basic, industry standard definitions that have been in use for more than a century.