>How are these fruits "stolen" if they still have what was allegedley stolen?

If you write a book and I take it and embed its knowledge into my product that is so pervasive that no one needs to buy your book any more (and I don't even credit you so no one knows where that knowledge came from), to you really still have what was stolen? And I didn't even buy a copy of your book to copy it.

▲

throwawayIche9j an hour ago | parent [-]

Yes. That's not to say that something damaging wasn't done, but nothing was stolen. Stealing/theft requires deprivation of property. It's like receiving a normal nonlethal punch in the face and calling it murder. Murder requires someone dying.

> Theft [...] is the act of taking another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. --- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealing

▲

skeeter2020 41 minutes ago | parent [-]

>> Stealing/theft requires deprivation of property

maybe you should look up the definition of property, which is a set of legally recognized rights over a thing, typically including:

* possession (what you're focusing on)

* use

* exclusion

* transfer

The last 3 seem like they have been breached, in legally that's theft.

▲

jasomill 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Violation of these rights may be criminal without meeting the strict legal definition of theft.

This can even extend to stealing physical property.

Depending on local laws, stealing a car may not actually be theft if the defendent can prove they intended to return it before the owner got home from work, though it would certainly be considered theft in the colloquial sense of the term, and they would still be guilty of a lesser offense like civil and/or criminal conversion.

▲

throwawayIche9j 32 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Theft is not the breach of any property right. It's specifically the deprivation of property without consent. Yes, I have checked the definition in my jurisdiction.

Getting punched in the face also violates rights, yet isn't murder. Murder is specifically about dying.

	▲	odo1242 12 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You’re splitting hairs over a definition that isn’t relevant here (theft and copyright infringement are different things) to defend something that even you agree is bad.
	▲	rustystump 8 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You forget that laws are made by people and at anytime they can change interpretations are arbitrary, roe vs wade today but not tomorrow. People seem to think what ai is today is theft. If enough people agree, it will be theft. Big companies dont like this and push the other way. An objectiveness doesnt exist here. It is too wiggly