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 an hour 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.

	▲	throwawayIche9j 33 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It isn't splitting hairs. The damages are completely different in nature. With theft, the entire damage is the deprivation. It could be a heirloom or some other object that may have been entrusted to you, something that can never be replaced. Something that you may have needed in your posession to survive (e.g. a car to go to your job). With a given copyright violation, the damage is that maybe[1] you made less profit than you could have. The potential for profit is not property. Profit isn't guaranteed. [1] The loss is not certain, because there's no guarantee that the ones consuming the copyrighted content could have even afforded it.

▲

rustystump an hour 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

	▲	4 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]