Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 13998751)

he is making an assertion without a foundation of proof JUST LIKE YOU WERE.

Copyright infringement is not theft because it does not deny you possession of the property, which means it does not meet the minimum requirements to be classified as theft

It is closer to "fraud" , in that you are cheating someone out of the rightful revenue by misrepresenting yourself to have a right you do not have.

But there is the rub, if you actually have bought or were given the right to view/listen to/ install etc you CAN'T be guilty of fraudlently misrepresenting "yourself to have a right to view/listen to/install etc"

Originally Posted by L-Pink (Post 13990868)

We are facing a generation that feels the purchase of a computer and the monthly access charge entitles them to everything on the internet.

Originally Posted by kane (Post 13999171)

According to my dictionary stealing is defined as: "In the criminal law, theft (also known as stealing) is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent." Does this not extend to intellectual property? Sure if you download a CD without permission the band may still be in physical possession of the CD, but you have stolen their intellectual property without their permission and without payment. That is stealing which is another word for theft.

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 13999267)

websters defines theft as



vs fraud



ti quite clear that the copyright infringement is closer to the latter then the former quite simply because you are not depriving the rightful owner of the content.

When you commit an act of copyright infringement you are misrepresenting that you actually have some right to that content (view/listen/install) and that misrepresentation forces the copyright holder to surrender the exclusive right of distribution for a fee (value).

Originally Posted by kane (Post 13999445)

Fair enough. When I read those two definitions it seems like download music illegally falls somewhere between the two. You are not taking away the owners right to continue to use it so it isn't true theft. But you aren't really committing an "intentional perversion of truth" either. You are just taking it. You aren't lying to someone and saying you are paying for it or that you have a right to it, you are just taking it.