The crux of the matter is that "steal" implies you've deprived the owner of something. (Actually, the us supreme court ruled on this a long while ago and clearly delineated the two..)
The only reason for the tap on the shoulder is the effort by the industry groups to get people to conflate the two things. I hate seeing people be tricked, especially by such an odious organization :)
Could you link to that decision or do you perhaps know the name of the case so I could search for it? The deprivation idea doesn't seem to be intuitive to most people I've talked with and it would be great to know the actual case law.
Sure, the case you're looking for is Dowling v. United States. I'd give you a Wiki link, but..
The general gist of the case is that a man made a business out of pressing and selling Elvis records without distribution rights. Because of this, he was indicted for (among other things) distribution of stolen property and conspiracy of the same.
The supreme court struck down all of the stealing charges, with an opinion that (and I'm paraphrasing from memory here): "Copyright implies a more complex set of property interests than simple theft".
The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
Although Karunamon already replied, I think you were responding to me. I'm not sure I understand the question - I'm not arguing that it is not an intuitive aspect of theft, I am stating that it has not been intuitive to people I have discussed this with. It is a fact, not an argument - are you trying to ask if I'm arguing that it should be an intuitive aspect of theft? If so then I really don't have an opinion - I think intuition is completely subjective and that there is no "should" about it.
Nono.. Quite the opposite, deprivation is key to what "theft" entails. If I haven't deprived you of an object, I haven't stolen anything. I might have copied it, used it without your permission, or infringed your copyright, or pirated, but I haven't stolen it.
>> The crux of the matter is that "steal" implies you've deprived the owner of something.
Yes, earnings. When you grow up you will need to work and earn money and pay bills and balance a checkbook and without "piracy" (meaning stealing) controls, your Internet usage will be even higher than mine as you grow older.
Yes, let us ignore the conclusions of the individuals that thought long and hard about the issue, and just go with what "common sense" (aka "the gut") tells us.
Allowing "theft" be defined as depriving someone of something turns pretty much every crime in existence into "theft". Maybe we should just have 1 commandment - thou shalt not steal?
The only reason for the tap on the shoulder is the effort by the industry groups to get people to conflate the two things. I hate seeing people be tricked, especially by such an odious organization :)