Technically they are using the word appropriately in respect to the laws protecting their
products and the context in which it is used.

Now, what I think people tend to react to is the connotations of the word "theft" (The set of associations implied by a word in addition to its literal meaning.)

(Stealing means to take the property of another without (permission).


"The basic problem with the word is that when I steal something the person that I stole from no longer has that item. The term that should be used is copyright infringement."

Again, for the record (pay attention)

If x owns/produces a product and sells it to y and y in turn shares-it with z (did z commit theft?)

The answer is a matter of perspective:

z did not commit an act of theft against y (!!!this is where most people stop in their arguments!!!)

BUT z did commit an act of theft against x (Important---->by law because z did not obtain permission from x to acquire the product and or resource).

Now y did not commit theft but did infringe on the rights of x because when y purchased a product from x one of the conditions of that sale was to abide by the conditions of using the product those rights are clearly spelled out in the fine print on most material.

If you go to court this is what's going to be at issue, so the judge does not care about how you perceived this agreement and the issue will be decided on the fact presented.

Perhaps I confused some people with all of the (x y & z associations so here we go.)

I loan my car to a friend (Larry) for (his exclusive use.)
My friend (Larry) loans my car to his girl friend (Jane).
She (Jane) gets stopped by the police, I'm notified that this person is driving my car (Can I press charges? Can I make the charges stick?) = yes and yes.

Why?

Fact: Jane did not steal the car from Larry.
Fact: Jane did not receive my permission to drive my car. (This action technically constitutes theft regardless of the intent)
Fact: Larry did not steal my car BUT he did violate an agreement we had.

I promise you that I can win this case hands down in a court of law any day.

What I think people are reacting to subconsciously is this:

The death of the free-Internet has been disappearing since the early 1990s, this is when commercialization by businesses began to take root. This was the best and the worse thing that ever happened to the Internet -- it was the best thing -- because it brought the Internet to millions. It was the worse thing--because using the Internet is now largely a commercial endeavor. With the focus shifting from How can we use this (the Internet.) to save money to how can we use the Internet to make money. The formula being:


The Formula:

{

1. Develop a service.

2. Push it as a more cost-effective business model to traditional method of doing business
or free (the intention here is to create a need.)

3. When the subscriptions are high begin charging small fees (to avoid mass-flight.)

4. Acquire a solid legal foundation to protect your model. (This step most effectively eliminates anyone who might threaten your model.)

5. Raise rates of providing the service due to increased cost of providing consumers with the convenience. (see number 2. for irony.)

6. Find things that people are largely interested in and begin at 1. = develop a service

}


Hope this helps to clarify things.

http://www.leeware.com