See {Thief}.]

1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny. [1913 Webster]

Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See {Larceny}, and the Note under {Robbery}. [1913 Webster]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal

steal [steel] stole, sto·len, steal·ing, noun verb (used with object)

1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.

2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.

...

Some jurisdictions have a much broader definition of theft too, e.g.: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9a.56.020

1) "Theft" means:

(a) To wrongfully obtain or exert unauthorized control over the property or services of another or the value thereof, with intent to deprive him or her of such property or services; or

(b) By color or aid of deception to obtain control over the property or services of another or the value thereof, with intent to deprive him or her of such property or services; or

(c) To appropriate lost or misdelivered property or services of another, or the value thereof, with intent to deprive him or her of such property or services.

(Emphasis added)

The point that is missed when engaging in these word games, of course, is that in common parlance, "theft" is used to mean any act that deprive others of something. In this case, it is the rightful payment for the value provided by the intellectual property that has been appropriated.

Indeed, all your a,b,c) examples include "with intent to deprive [the owner] of such property or services". And it is a necessary condition for it to be considered theft. If not it is not theft. It might be fraud, but that is different from theft! In particular the sentencing for larceny and theft have traditionally been harsher afaik almost everywhere. Most times, if you simply refuse to pay for something, you can settle up by paying for it (assuming no one else has been deprived of the same thing as a direct result of you not paying) -- and that will be the end of it. Possibly with a fine in extreme cases.

> In this case, it is the rightful payment for the value provided by the intellectual property that has been appropriated.

The what now? ;-)

They gouged me when I went to school and they continue to gouge students each semester with their new editions that come out each semester of 400 year old subjects (calculus). That's what they need to do to maximize profits. I'm simply a 1-man corporation that needs to maximize my own profits and copying my books happens to be an unpopular corporate decision.

I'm saying there was no intent to deprive someone of access to something they already own, or are in possession of. There might be intent to not pay for a licence to access something -- but not paying isn't the same as stealing. Everyone else still have access to their licences and licensed copies.]

Legally, theft means you deprive someone of their access to a thing. There's a difference between that, and "getting something for free that you should pay for" -- when that 'thing' isn't a thing at all -- it's a copy -- and by the act of copying you aren't depriving anyone of their access to the thing you copied.

If you steal a book, you're staling it from the current owner: either an avid book fan, a shop, a library. On very rare occasions, say at a conference -- the owner of the book-thing will happen to be the same legal entity as the author (tough even more seldom the copyright holder, as that might be the publisher).

I'm not saying that copyright infringement is legal, I'm saying it's not theft.

On a side note, the use of the word piracy is even worse -- it implies threats and/or application of violence -- effectively lifting something that is a civil matter to a criminal matter.

> in common parlance, taking something without permission is theft, even if it's not tangible property (e.g. "he stole my idea".)

And you can also call "a bargain" "a steal". That doesn't mean it's illegal to shop at a fire sale...

Yes, it is. If you do that with physical items, it's called "shoplifting" :-) You may now argue that taking, say, a loaf of bread deprives somebody of it. But consider that between 14 and 40 percent of perishable supermarket groceries are discarded as waste. Who's to then stop you from saying you took the loaf that was going to be discarded anyway and so you're not depriving anybody?

> I'm not saying that copyright infringement is legal, I'm saying it's not theft.

And I'm saying, colloquially, copyright infringement is equivalent to theft. This is why there are laws against it, it's just that the legal code is different for different crimes. Now, one may insist on using the proper legal terms, but note that this is not a legal forum or a legal debate, so colloquial usage is fine :-)

> And you can also call "a bargain" "a steal". That doesn't mean it's illegal to shop at a fire sale...

And you can say "she stole my heart". That does not mean it's illegal to be attractive either. Obviously the context of how the word "steal" is used matters. But note that it typically has negative connotations, implying that the act is somehow unfair. And when talking about taking without permission, stealing describes the act pretty well.

No it isn't.

>> If you do that with physical items, it's called "shoplifting" :-)

You're being purposfully vague, using "if you do that" rather than stating plainly what you mean by "that".

If you go into a store, and not pay for something, then that is perfectly legal. If you go into a store and take a photograph of a magazine page, that may or may not be legal -- but if it is illegal, it isn't theft. It's copyright infringement. And it's not a crime against the store (the current owner of the physical copy of the magazine), it's a crime against the copyright holder (because, when the store bought the magazine, it didn't buy a copyright licence).

Now, if you take physical item from the store, then that is shop lifting. The store can no longer sell that item to recouperate it's costs, nor can it return it to it's supplier as unsold.

> You may now argue that taking, say, a loaf of bread deprives somebody > of it.

Yes, it deprives the current owner of it. That is the nature of physical goods.

> But consider that between 14 and 40 percent of perishable > supermarket groceries are discarded as waste. Who's to then stop you > from saying you took the loaf that was going to be discarded anyway > and so you're not depriving anybody?

First, I'm all for dumster diving, efforts to make a more sustainable world, making it illegal to dump unspoilt food etc, etc -- however:

You're still depriving the store of the physical good. Who's to say the store doesn't have a policy of donating unsold food to soup kitchens?

So, yes you can ratinaolize breaking the law (self defense and the defense of human life is one example ingrained in most modern laws) -- that doesn't mean that making a copy is the same as stealing.

Even more - schoolchildren are regularly copying massive amounts of files - are you (obviously dishonestly) claiming that they have the funds at their disposal to pay for the "in shop" prices of those files?

I don't understand - have I appropriated that software by any means? Then why would you be owed some payment?

> are you (obviously dishonestly) claiming that they have the funds at their disposal to pay for the "in shop" prices of those files?

No, I'm claiming that they should not be copying those files. Are you implying that none of those children can get funds for paying for those copies?