zlacker

Did they really steal if they didn't deprive anyone of their copy? I don't think copying is theft.

>>zoklet+(OP)
"Tell it to the Judge..."

>>zoklet+(OP)
You may not think it is but the law does.

>>zoklet+(OP)
Agreed, the judge should avoid slang or even commonly accepted synonyms in an official ruling. The charge is not for theft.

Substitute infringement for theft.

>>kjkjad+61
The law says it’s copyright infringement, not theft.

>>zoklet+(OP)
It's copyright infringement, which is not theft, they're legally distinct in the eyes of the law. This is partly why the "you wouldn't download a car" copyright ads were so widely mocked.

>>zoklet+(OP)
It's fine that you think that way. But this is a discusion of the laws of the United States of America and ruling by American courts, not a discussion of your own legal theories.

>>fortra+Gc
The GP isn’t talking about some edge case legal dilemma that requires a lawyer or judge to comment. It’s already widely documented that copyright infringement is legally distinct from theft.

>>hadloc+j5
Fun fact, they didn't have the rights to use the font they used for those commercials: >>43775926

>>__Matr+2i
Or the music. It was originally made as a one off for a film festival. Movie industry defended the lawsuit over the music.

>>zoklet+(OP)
They stole from the amount they would have legally paid to buy a copy from the copyright holder.

Think about it like sneaking into a movie theater and watch a movie without paying. The theater was going to play the movie anyway and, assuming it wasn't a packed theatre, I didn't deprive anyone else of their ability to watch. It's still theft because I'm getting something that costs money for free and depriving the theater of the money that they're owed.