News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Book Piracy as Peer Preservation by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @12:50PM (#12166957)
If you use someone's property without authorization, but don't intend to deprive them of it permanently, that indeed in most jurisdictions is not theft, that is criminal conversion.

It's really not that difficult, you can simply look up what these terms mean instead of inventing your own definitions. "Depriving someone of money" is not the definition of theft. And it not only isn't, it would be a braindead definition if it were. Suddenly, buying from your competitor would be theft. Accidentally dropping your dishes would be theft. Pretty much everything would be theft under that definition.

Re:Book Piracy as Peer Preservation by Nullabillity on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @12:53PM (#12166995)
> Accidentally dropping your dishes would be theft.

And not dropping them would be, as well!

[dead]
Re:Book Piracy as Peer Preservation by dragonwriter on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @01:17PM (#12167188)
> Is it still "criminal conversion" when you decide after that one ride that you want to keep that car in your garage, but not drive it anymore? You will return it some other day..

Technically, you still haven't committed theft, since the intent must be present at the time of the taking.

OTOH, in practical terms (aside from the fact that its still a crime either way), the fact that you did keep it is something that a prosecutor will often have very little trouble convincing a jury is clear evidence that you intended to keep it when you took it.

> It's a copy, and you did not intend to buy it anyway so it's all right

Criminal conversion (in the general case) or joyriding (sometimes a separate offense in the automotive case) is not "all right"; just because it is a different criminal offense than (general or auto) theft, its still a crime, which is kind of the opposite of "all right" from the perspective of the legal system.

Re:Book Piracy as Peer Preservation by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @01:27PM (#12167272)
> It's a copy, and you did not intend to buy it anyway so it's all right, and it's not a theft right?

WTF?

"It's not theft, therefore it's alright" ... where did you pick up that logic?