>you can post up definitions all day long. But bottom line, if
>you're receiving goods or services that have been offered up
>for sale, and you obtain these goods without paying, you're
>stealing, or at the very least in possession of stolen shit.
>
>
>if you walk past a store with a broken lock, and help yourself
>to a pair of pants, are you NOT stealing? were those pants
>"free"?
>
>
>same shit, playboy.


I'm not arguing about whether or not it's "stealing"... technically it's stealing as I am transferring ownership of the intangible product without consent of the initial copyright holder or owner.

Regardless of this fact, it's still free, as I am transferring possession with no reciprocation of resources or services to the owner or file-host.

If the intangible product wasn't obtained for free, then at what cost to me was the product obtained? I am using the term "free" to refer to the cost (or expense) of exchange that was incurred to me, the exchangee.

IMO, the issue here is the fact that there's little to no inhibition on the part of the downloader. as it is so widespread and easy to do. also, the fact that when stealing intangible media, the original owner still maintains full ownership of his or her product, it just just being copied or cloned (therefore the law has a tougher time defining "theft" in this case).

People feel that there will be little to no consequence when obtaining illegal possession of intangible media. and in the overwhelming majority of incidences, there isn't.

People's willingness to abide by the law is directly related to their perceived odds of getting caught, and facing the consequences.