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.
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.
No, it's still theft even if you return it. The theft occurred. Yes, the damages can be considered less, and that can be considered in sentencing by the judges discretion, not by the law itself (unless we've got some retarded sentencing guidelines trying to rule on the minutia of the case)
It's the same reason why kidnapping includes moving a person one foot. It's still considered a serious felony.
I never said copying was stealing, you're trying to conflate them and telling me I'm conflating them. This is because you don't have a clear understanding of theft.
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.
Yes, and I've told you they're different.
And stealing your work truck isn't different from stealing the digitial copy of your novel, beyond the fact that your work truck is more objectively expensive.
What would not be fine is for books to be protected by copyright and paywall, not purchased, and still be data mined for their material without compensation to the owner. This is especially true with something as vast as a for-profit business as an AI algorithm.
And then called it "theft of the material."
So let me walk you through this with some questions:
If I buy a book and read it, then write a novel inspired by what I learned, did I steal from the original author? No? Then why is it different when a computer does the reading?
How about making a statistical model of word frequency with a pencil and paper? That is, counting the frequency of words and their position in a sentence. Laborious, but anyone with a working knowledge of statistics could do it. Is it different when a computer performs the calculations? Has anything been stolen in either case? What if I apply that model to a new work to see if they have matching statistical fingerprints? Is anything stolen yet?
When you "steal" something, can the original owner still use it? When you copy a digital file, can the original owner still use theirs?
You keep saying "digital assets can be stolen" but you haven't explained how copying something constitutes theft when nobody loses access to anything. That's because you're conflating unauthorized access (hacking into a system) with copyright infringement (making copies). By the way, neither one of those is theft as defined under the law.
Here's what you can look up if you're genuinely interested: Dowling v. United States, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Notice how they're all different laws covering different things? That's because copying, stealing, and hacking are different acts with different legal frameworks.
The reason this matters isn't semantic pedantry - it's that damages, defenses, and remedies are completely different. Copyright has fair use exceptions. Theft doesn't.
For everyone else reading: this is why words have specific meanings in law. "Theft" isn't just "taking something you shouldn't."
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.
No, it's still theft even if you return it. The theft occurred. Yes, the damages can be considered less, and that can be considered in sentencing by the judges discretion, not by the law itself (unless we've got some retarded sentencing guidelines trying to rule on the minutia of the case)
It's the same reason why kidnapping includes moving a person one foot. It's still considered a serious felony.
I never said copying was stealing, you're trying to conflate them and telling me I'm conflating them. This is because you don't have a clear understanding of theft.
Yes, and I've told you they're different.
And stealing your work truck isn't different from stealing the digitial copy of your novel, beyond the fact that your work truck is more objectively expensive.
Gizortnik, you originally wrote:
And then called it "theft of the material." So let me walk you through this with some questions: If I buy a book and read it, then write a novel inspired by what I learned, did I steal from the original author? No? Then why is it different when a computer does the reading?
How about making a statistical model of word frequency with a pencil and paper? That is, counting the frequency of words and their position in a sentence. Laborious, but anyone with a working knowledge of statistics could do it. Is it different when a computer performs the calculations? Has anything been stolen in either case? What if I apply that model to a new work to see if they have matching statistical fingerprints? Is anything stolen yet?
When you "steal" something, can the original owner still use it? When you copy a digital file, can the original owner still use theirs?
You keep saying "digital assets can be stolen" but you haven't explained how copying something constitutes theft when nobody loses access to anything. That's because you're conflating unauthorized access (hacking into a system) with copyright infringement (making copies). By the way, neither one of those is theft as defined under the law.
Here's what you can look up if you're genuinely interested: Dowling v. United States, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Notice how they're all different laws covering different things? That's because copying, stealing, and hacking are different acts with different legal frameworks. The reason this matters isn't semantic pedantry - it's that damages, defenses, and remedies are completely different. Copyright has fair use exceptions. Theft doesn't. For everyone else reading: this is why words have specific meanings in law. "Theft" isn't just "taking something you shouldn't."