Sure, but that's semantics. You are acquiring a thing which has value to you, and has value to its owner, and which the owner has asked you to pay for. You can't pretend the thing you have acquired is without value if you wanted it. Piracy is really about "do I want to pay, and can you stop me from getting it without paying?" and this business about "I'm not really stealing because it's digital and the marginal cost of production is zero" is just self-justification.

> Sure, but that's semantics.

I hate it when people say that to dismiss things. Semantics is all about meaning. Without it we can't have a discussion. It's what's important about the words we say.

> You are acquiring a thing which has value to you, and has value to its owner, and which the owner has asked you to pay for.

Right, which means it had enough value for you to copy it, but says nothing about whether or not it was valuable enough to pay money for it. And if it wasn't valuable enough to pay money for it, the author loses nothing in that particular instance of piracy.

Of course, that doesn't mean all piracy falls under this case, but it does seem important to distinguish between these things.

> I hate it when people say that to dismiss things.

I always avoid ever saying anything like "that's [just] semantics", and I try to discourage others to, too, but in many of the situations where it shows up (including this one), there's nothing wrong with the complaint itself. When you hear someone swipe, "I'm not going to argue semantics with you", it generally carries an implicit accusation of an attempted change in subject. Consider:

Sara: "Nathan ate the clementines I bought from Oliver this morning!"

Oliver, Nate's friend: "I didn't sell her any clementines. The only fruit I've even touched today are these. They're not clementines. They're small mandarin oranges."

Does it matter that Sara can't distinguish clementines from ordinary mandarins? If there's a law that punishes you differently depending on whether you stole true clementines or not, then sure, what they actually are is materially relevant. Absent that, though, does Sara care what the definition is right now? No, and neither should anyone else. To even bring it up just distracts from Sara's actual complaint.

That is to say: if the argument starts as a semantic one, then semantic quibbles are relevant. ("The law says this about subcategory Y. Does what's at issue satisfy the definition of Y, or is it merely Z?") If it's not, though, then it's appropriate to call someone out on DOSing the conversation with a semantic rabbit hole (instead of being able to concede, "You say 'photocopier', while I say 'Xerox'", and then moving the fuck on).

> Sure, but that's semantics.

Of course it's semantics - we're discussing the meaning of the word "theft", and deciding whether it applies to this situation! By denying the relevance of semantics you beg the question, assuming that the words must mean to everyone precisely what they mean to you.

"Owner", for example: your statement presumes the idea of software copyright, that someone who is neither party to the copying scenario can "own" the pattern of bits being copied, and have a right to demand payment for it. Well, that is the question, and the Russians clearly have a different point of view than yours.

Of course I share their skepticism: the idea of intellectual property seems to have brought about rather more harm than benefit, and I generally follow Proudhon's view on the subject of property.

I don't know why you keep confusing theft with copyright infringement. There is no logical reason to do that other than to do some subconscious moral framing.

It's similar to arguing ice cream is not fresh because it is made of frozen milk. You're trying to form a bad association that is completely illogical.

I'm mostly not in favor of software or media piracy (though if it has been sufficiently long (not sure how long) since it has been commercially available, or a handful of other cases that don't come to mind right now, I think probably fine), but I do think it makes sense to distinguish it from theft, and indeed, distinguish it on the basis that you are not depriving the person of a thing which they have.

If Joe is selling cherries he grew on his cherry tree, and I start selling some cherries from my cherry tree for cheaper (or just giving away cherries), this does deprive Joe from some of the profit he would get from selling his cherries, because some people who would have bought some cherries from Joe instead of from me, but I am by no means stealing profits from Joe. I'm not taking his cherries. He still has his cherries. That's not to say that he isn't worse off. He is, of course, worse off. But (except if some other conditions hold) I haven't wronged him, and I certainly haven't stolen from him.

(Ftr, I don't actually have a cherry tree, and do not grow any food.)

Now, if Joe is selling copies of a file, and I am giving away copies of the same file, well, it seems like a similar situation. One difference is that in the case of the cherry tree, both Joe and I are putting in the work to create the product, namely, by raising and maintaining our respective cherry trees, and harvesting the cherries,

while in the case of the computer file, it may be that Joe put in a lot of work into creating that file in the first place, and I did not, and so if I were to sell copies of the file, that would seem quite questionable.

Now, if I were to distribute the file Joe made and is selling, the reason this would be bad is probably a combination of "This makes Joe worse off, and he should be rewarded for the benefit he provided others, and also society decided on that basis that I shouldn't do that, and unless there is an overriding moral obligation to do otherwise, I morally ought to follow the ethical rules that society has established."

This is, I'll admit, somewhat similar to at least some of the reason it would be bad for me to steal some of Joe's cherries and give them away (though with less of the reason being "because of the ethics society decided" part than in the case with distributing the file.)

Though, one difference in this case is, Joe could do other things with the cherries other than sell them, and by stealing them, I am depriving him also of that option. This doesn't happen in the case of distributing the file. Nor would it happen if I had a magical duplication beam which I used to make duplicates of his cherries.

I think this difference is an important part of the concept of theft.

The concept of theft, I expect, arose substantially before money, and I imagine also before significant trade.

The concept of "Hey, that's mine! I need that!" is fairly basic, and is based on "If another person takes it from you, you don't have it anymore." .

Now, of course, socially we could agree to use the word "theft" to also include software/media piracy, but I personally don't think we should. I think it is best to use different words for them, because I think it makes sense to keep the concepts separate (though related).

> socially we could agree to use the word "theft" to also include software/media piracy, but I personally don't think we should

Do you personally feel that wage theft isn't theft?

Same hypothetical, except the cherries Joe picks aren't actually Joe's—they're Jill's. Jill owns some farmland where cherries grow, and she lets people pick them. They do so on the premise that cherry pickers get paid by Jill on Tuesdays. Joe moves to town and picks cherries there all week and then hands them over. Jill says "thanks" and then slams the door in Joe's face. Does this fail to meet the threshold for the appropriate use of the word "theft"? Joe has not had anything taken from him[1]—certainly not any physical property[2] he could do anything else with or ever plausibly argue "That's mine" to anyone willing to lend a sympathetic ear—because the cherries were never his.[3]

1. 30e7f23b81e476dd7afc8f4e23401aed004567526f8dc58ca97fc3339fe5d2bf

2. d38b2ef315ebb47a44a28abf7884c7fecf05b11f0d34a875fffc89ce4f955e81

3. 188e9eee6f835b8a6bd2f927de75006cd87215d10dee9a0225e320f3ee6d4b65

Indeed, calling the fact not paying an employee's a type of theft seems to be an originally English idiom¹. In other languages it's more akin to an unpaid debt or a breach contract rather than stolen property. Intuitively, to have something stolen one needs to have gained ownership of it in the first place. (And being owed something is not the same as owning it.)

P.S.: What's with the hashes?

¹. It seems to also be used in Spanish, but mostly in an American context as a calque from English.

Not a native speaker and NAL, but why would anyone call this "theft"? If anything (assuming that the premise was agreed upon by both parties, of course), I'd call that defalcation, embezzlement, or simply fraud. But as you laid out yourself, this doesn't fit any definition of theft.