FWB wrote:It most certainly isn't. It isn't semantics either. It is the law. Theft Act 1968 property and Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 for copyright infringement.ploder wrote:It most certainly is. Again, get with the times. New age, new semantics.FWB wrote:'Withholding' money is not theft either mate. Theft is dishonestly taking something without the permission of the owner with no intention of giving it back.You have misconstrued what I said. If it is a physical copy and he takes it without permission it is theft. Making copies and distributing something in digital form is not theft because the original is not taken. It does not matter how good the copy is. It only matters that it is not in physical form any moreNope, my point was that money has been withheld, doesn't matter what the format is.
Your definition of theft is stuck in the 1800s. We've moved on. This is the digital age.
It is not my definition, it is the law's definition. As I said before go look this up and see for yourself.Don't tell me to do your research. You have an argument, then you cite it. And IF it is the case, then the law needs to update itself.
digital forms of content and trademarks are not 'property' for the purposes of the theft.
Also have a gander at this:
The law 'updates' itself through gov bringing bills in the Houses of Parliament, not through private companies trying to decide who should be punished and what their offences are