I am ashamed that I hadn’t reasoned this through given all the rubbish digital services have pulled with “purchases” being lies.

  • merc@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    11 months ago

    Theft isn’t specific to property, you can steal services too.

    You can’t really “steal” services, even though they sometimes call it that. You can access services without authorization, but you’re not stealing anything. You can access services you don’t have authorization to access and then disrupt people who are authorized to use those services. But, again, not stealing. Just disruption.

    Stealing deprives a person of something, copyright infringement and unauthorized access to services don’t.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      11 months ago

      You can’t really “steal” services, even though they sometimes call it that.

      If you hire me to paint your portrait and then don’t pay me you have stolen my labour. I have given my time and effort and have not been reimbursed for it.

      If you paid me and then gave your neighbour a copy of your portrait then you have not stolen my labour.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Freelancers may be upset if they’re mistreated, but that doesn’t mean they get to declare they were murdered, or that they were raped, or any other crime that didn’t occur. Theft has a specific definition, and fraud is not the same thing as theft.

        • floppade [he/him]@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          You’re being pedantic in the cases you want while complaining to others when they are differently pedantic. I’m not stooping to pretending to misunderstand due to pedantry.

          If you are using the term theft colloquially, which most of us are as this is not a court, legal journal, economic journal, etc. Given that colloquial means the way people generally speak, as we are now, theft has a meaning: taking something that’s not yours through force or trickery. That would mean fraud is a type of theft in this case and not a different thing altogether.

          So be a pedant I guess but it’s boring and lazy-brained.

          • merc@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            I’m all in favour of people being pedantic, especially in the case of laws.

            If you are using the term theft colloquially

            I’m not, “theft” is misused all the time. It’s something that the copyright cartels encourage because they get to pretend that copyright infringement is theft. It’s not. We should push back and say theft has to meet certain conditions, and copyright infringement isn’t theft. Nor is “wage theft”, which is a form of fraud.

            By buying into the colloquial definition of “theft” and expanding the scope to be any time someone is inconvenienced, you give the copyright cartels power to make people think copyright infringement is as bad as actual real theft, when it’s clearly not.

            • floppade [he/him]@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              If you’re not going to use the term in a colloquial context while you are in a colloquial setting, then you need to cite what source you are referencing for your definition. Given that you are talking about laws, then you need to recognize that every place defines things differently according to the law. So which law, where?

              Being unnecessarily argumentative and snobby while at the same time not meeting your own standards is ridiculous.

    • Stuka@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      I guess you can’t steal anything when you just decide to limit the definition of the word.

      But if we’re in reality and using the way words are actually defined then yes you can steal something intangible, and no it does not require someone to be deprived of something.

      • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I’m not going to look up every state, but the Penal Code in some states explicitly define theft as:

        A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property.

        So, I think it is reasonable to include intent to deprive as part of the definition.

        • Stuka@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          You do understand the difference between penal code and the definition of a word, no? Surely the reason why the two are not at all even slightly interchangeable is plainly clear to anyone of reasonable intelligence.

          • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            In the state where I live, the penal code includes the legal definitions of words such as “theft”.

            The legal system here does not use a Webster’s dictionary to define words. We use the penal code, code of criminal procedure, traffic code and other legal guidance codes to define the meanings of words used in the law and in official government communications.

            These are the definitions that would be used by complainants in cases brought against pirates, if such a case were to be brought. For that reason, I believe these definitions are relevant here.

            • Stuka@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              The penal code necessarily uses incredibly narrow definitions with very specific verbiage.

              Using the word steal in OPs title is common use of the word, which aligns with the dictionary definition, they certainly are not quoting a legal definition

              Get outta here with this dumb shit.

              So much ‘verbal’ diarrahhea to try to make yourself feel better about what you’re doing.

              I pirate shit, that is a form a theft. Cope with it or stop doing it.

              • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                I was genuinely following your debate points until you got to:

                Get outta here with this dumb shit.

                I have been kind and polite our entire interaction. I didn’t even initially downvote you. In fact, I initially upvoted you. If I’ve worded something in a manner that implied I was attacking you, my apologies.

                I’ve simply offered a reason one might include a specific phrase in their definition. There is no reason to be this angry or insulting in such an innocuous and ultimately meaningless debate.

                You made some good points. I feel I made some good points. That should be the end of it, whether we agree or not. There’s no need to bring emotion into our interaction other than support for each other’s valid points.

          • floppade [he/him]@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            I don’t think you understand how laws work. Many times, they are required to define terms in order to enforce the law.

        • Stuka@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          To selectively focus on one small sliver of the definition of the word, ignoring the full meaning of the word and the context to push your agenda? Smells like propaganda.

          • merc@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            The entire definition matters. There’s already a term for “copyright infringement” it’s “copyright infringement”. Pretending it’s theft is just a trick the copyright cartels are using to try to make it seem like a serious crime that has existed for millennia instead of a relatively new rule imposed in the last few centuries by the government, then made ridiculous by the entertainment cartel.

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I guess you can’t steal anything when you just decide to limit the definition of the word.

        I guess you can steal anything when you expand the definition of the word to anything you want.

        You live on the internet, it would take you 5 seconds to link to the “actual definition” you are using if the word was actually used that way.

    • MostlyHarmless@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      So if someone creates a piece of art and I take a photo of it and sell the photo, or create prints of it, or even just give it give that photo to lots of people, what is that?

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        11 months ago

        Who cares? The point is, it’s not theft. The person who had the art still has the art, so it’s not theft.

        • floppade [he/him]@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          That is an assumption made that the artist still has the original thing that was not paid for. I understand what you’re being pedantic about. I just don’t think you’re right.

          • merc@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            What part of that statement suggests that the artist no longer has the original art? As stated, no theft occurred.

        • desconectado@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Stealing services doesn’t necessarily have to do with copyright infringement.

          My point is that OP over simplification of theft is not even worth considering, from a legal or personal point of view.

          • merc@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Not really, theft is theft. Fraud is fraud. Just because something feels like theft doesn’t make it theft.

            • desconectado@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              You were the one who quoted that wage theft is a form or fraud, so I’m not sure what’s your point. Yes, some theft can be fraud… but still theft.