Do Posters On Tv Forums Retain Copyright To Posts ?

[torrenova]

From the Forum Rules:

After you agree to the terms below... 22) Not to post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles).

So it would be kind of hard to assert copyright to material that you have posted when you have agreed in advance as Terms of Membership that you will not post any copyrighted materials...

There is also the matter of Copyright jurisdiction: In which country are you going to claim copyright privileges? ThaiVisa.com only claims that it is NOT operated in Thailand; and even if hosted and Corporate domiciled in Singapore, that could change tomorrow to Gibraltar or Monserrat.

Then why, if protected from Thai laws by being hosted outside of Thailand, do they suck up to Thai laws, ban discussion of the monarchy, worry about being sued for this and that under Thai libel laws etc.

Cannot have it both ways.

[dantilley]

Mainly because of the Thai governments tendancy to block sites they don't approve of to users in Thailand. If ThaiVisa gets blocked in Thailand, I'd guess that something like about 80% of the traffic would disappear.

[Moonrakers]

I have a question regarding this:.....

Does it really bloody matter?

[jazzbo]

Then why, if protected from Thai laws by being hosted outside of Thailand, do they suck up to Thai laws, ban discussion of the monarchy... Only conjecture on my part but the advertisers, especially the large Corporate advertisers, are based in Thailand and such postings would reflect poorly on their Corporate image.

As to I have a question regarding this:... Does it really bloody matter? This topic was started by the OP and then others who have potential commercial designs for their writings and/or photographs and they wanted to know the various copyright implications of those materials being posted on TV.com. So, at least for those persons, I guess it does matter.

Edited January 16, 2010 by jazzbo

[Crossy]

Then why, if protected from Thai laws by being hosted outside of Thailand, do they suck up to Thai laws, ban discussion of the monarchy...

It would be more than slightly inconvenient for many members if TV got itself blocked by the Thai government. Respect for the laws of the country where many of us live is sensible.

[LivinLOS]

posting something you have copied from somewhere is stealing.

Theft, plain and simple.

''Fair use'' is also a misunderstood term. It covers things like quoting a book in a book review, or posting a head and a couple of sentences and a link to a news story.

Erm.. Its NOT theft.. The owner is not deprived of the original.. Thats theft !!

Considering people are debating copyright infringement you would think the understanding of the right to copy and how it differs from 'theft' would be a little higher.

Theres a reason its called copyright infringement.. Because it ISNT theft !!

Jeez ... I must be bored. Try Googling ''FACT''. (It stands for Federation Against Copyright Theft, BTW.) In the UK, copyright infringement has been described by the government as ''civil theft'', ie ''theft''. Another word for theft (altogether now, including you lot at the back) is ... stealing.

I am well aware of the FACT a shill for the entertainment industry who are attempting to change the laws (As Disney have) and perceptions.. They have constantly overstepped the mark and lost lawsuits because of it.. Forgive me if an industry shill is your best source.

That doesnt change the fact that its not theft.. Theft is a legal definition which means to deprive the owner of the original item. When you publish something you accept that people have rights to copy it, thats why its called copy right !! Those rights are limited in scope but copying is not ever 'theft' if you struggle to understand the concepts and definitions it may be best you read up.

On a lighter note..

[MarkBKK]

I am well aware of the FACT a shill for the entertainment industry who are attempting to change the laws (As Disney have) and perceptions.. They have constantly overstepped the mark and lost lawsuits because of it.. Forgive me if an industry shill is your best source.

That doesnt change the fact that its not theft.. Theft is a legal definition which means to deprive the owner of the original item. When you publish something you accept that people have rights to copy it, thats why its called copy right !! Those rights are limited in scope but copying is not ever 'theft' if you struggle to understand the concepts and definitions it may be best you read up.

Possibly my final words in this thread. ''Hurrah!'' I hear you say. And why not?

Maybe you're not a native English speaker, in which case, I apologise for my lack of patience.

Which bit don't you understand?

If you take (copy) someone's work*, without paying for it or without permission, you're stealing it. It's theft. Theft (legally, in England and Wales anyway) basically means taking something without permission and denying the owner of it. What you are stealing is the money the copyright owner would have made if you had paid for what you had copied, instead of just stealing it. Laws are worded differently, for legal reasons mainly, to cover all sorts of eventualities ... and, er, backs, but the basic principle is that you are stealing something that doesn't belong to you. You are thieving something instead of paying for it. Geddit? (No, you probably don't, do you ... sigh.)

Remarks like ''When you publish something you accept that people have rights to copy it, thats why its called copy right !!'' are an example of the extreme level of ignorance of some members of Thai Visa with regard to this issue.

It's called copyright because the owner of the copyright has the right to decide who may copy it.

I suggest you ''read up'' a little before you make any more extremely foolish remarks like that again!

PS Yes, FACT does seem to be a bunch of onanists, but I thought it might get you started on the path to understanding.

* Fair use excluded, but that's not what we're talking about, is it?

[Edited in asterisk bit, just in case.]

Edited January 16, 2010 by MarkBKK

[SpoliaOpima]

As for other material outside of the forum, I still see no problem, as long as it is sourced and credited, apart from certain media outlets that have prohibited links.

That seems to be the opinion of most posters on Thai Visa.

And of course it is completely wrong. The exact opposite of reality, in fact.

Apart from the very, very few sources of material (words, images, etc) that explicitly give permission for their material to be copied/re-used/re-published, or sources such as The Nation (with which Thai Visa has an arrangement), and ignoring ''fair use'' for the moment, then no amount of ''sourcing'' or ''crediting'' will get you around the fact that posting something you have copied from somewhere is stealing.

Theft, plain and simple.

''Fair use'' is also a misunderstood term. It covers things like quoting a book in a book review, or posting a head and a couple of sentences and a link to a news story.

OK Mark, that is your opinion.

My particular opinion is that fair use is an acceptable provision as long as it is credited and the source identified and that authors of articles would be more than pleased to see their work further advertised.

However, you appear very strong in your conviction, so I am a little surprised you have not quoted any copyright law, Thai, or otherwise, so for my benefit, is there any chance of a link to prove and qualify your opinion, so I can review mine and adjust it if necessary.

Many thanks

Moss

Actually, it's not my opinion at all. If you knew anything about the subject, or did any research at all, you would realise that it was the law in most countries. I really can't be bothered to educate you on the subject, after all, I'm not being paid to do so.

And of course, you're entitled to your opinion, however wrong it may be. Gosh, ''authors of articles would be more than pleased to see their work further advertised'' ... you really never have worked in the media, have you? That's why writers write ... just to see their name in print. Not to pay the mortgage. No, of course not. That's why publishers publish the words they've paid someone to write and to surrender their copyright to. Not to make money ... maybe for some altruistic reason like saving the planet, or letting you steal their property.

Yeah, right.

Silly billy.

If you can't be bothered to support your view, I'm afraid we'll have to file it under opinion. I've studied copyright law, and you are wrong

[SpoliaOpima]

I have found, at first by chance, that there are a few websites that allow user-posted information with the following notice:

Copyright remains with the original copyright holder

or

Contributors maintain their own copyrights to original works.

That is the case, by law, whether such notices or posted or not.

[LivinLOS]

I am well aware of the FACT a shill for the entertainment industry who are attempting to change the laws (As Disney have) and perceptions.. They have constantly overstepped the mark and lost lawsuits because of it.. Forgive me if an industry shill is your best source.

That doesnt change the fact that its not theft.. Theft is a legal definition which means to deprive the owner of the original item. When you publish something you accept that people have rights to copy it, thats why its called copy right !! Those rights are limited in scope but copying is not ever 'theft' if you struggle to understand the concepts and definitions it may be best you read up.

Possibly my final words in this thread. ''Hurrah!'' I hear you say. And why not?

Maybe you're not a native English speaker, in which case, I apologise for my lack of patience.

Which bit don't you understand?

If you take (copy) someone's work*, without paying for it or without permission, you're stealing it. It's theft. Theft (legally, in England and Wales anyway) basically means taking something without permission and denying the owner of it. What you are stealing is the money the copyright owner would have made if you had paid for what you had copied, instead of just stealing it. Laws are worded differently, for legal reasons mainly, to cover all sorts of eventualities ... and, er, backs, but the basic principle is that you are stealing something that doesn't belong to you. You are thieving something instead of paying for it. Geddit? (No, you probably don't, do you ... sigh.)

I am quite familiar with IP law, and copyright thanks..

For a start your making the tenuous argument that for every copy of a work there would have been a work sold.. Without any basis of fact.. If I copy a picture 100 times, and delete them all the copyright holder lost 100 sales ?? Of course not, thats why there are rights and laws defining what rights a person has to copy published works.

As above for it to be theft, you have to deny the owner of it.. This is why it is copyright 'infringement' not theft, the 2 are clear and distinct legal terms and no amount of lobbying by the RIAA, MPAA, Disney et al are changing it. I see they have managed to confuse you but that doesnt change the LAW or what the legal definitions of theft and infringing on the right to copy actually mean.

It also seems your getting licensing and copyright intertwined but hey.

Remarks like ''When you publish something you accept that people have rights to copy it, thats why its called copy right !!'' are an example of the extreme level of ignorance of some members of Thai Visa with regard to this issue.

It's called copyright because the owner of the copyright has the right to decide who may copy it.

I suggest you ''read up'' a little before you make any more extremely foolish remarks like that again!

Erm.. No its not the owner who gets to decide that, its the COPYRIGHT LAW that decides that.. You clearly dont understand what happens when you publish and give the right to copy out. So your simply not correct, copyright does not give exclusive right to the initial publisher.. The fact you think it does, or you think it should, is not the law.. I suggest you read up on the Berne convention and what rights to copy exist.

Once you publish something you have the right to control its publication, adaptation, distribution (only!!) etc until it enters the public domain (the mickey mouse plus 20 laws as influenced by Disney). But what defines the 'right to copy' (in this case forum posts, and posted pictures) IS precisely under the fair use doctrines. These (in most developed countries) explicitly state you CAN copy the work for non commercial / private use. Also a large determining factor in the 'copy rights' are if the act of copying 'imposes a punitive effect on the commercial value of the work'. The poster retains the copy right to his post (IMO) but in publishing he puts that work out there where all the usual rights to copy published works apply.

For example educational use is (in most countries) totally excluded.. You could take a book, photocopy its pages, distribute it for educational purposes and not have infringed upon its copy rights at all. Isreal has ruled sports broadcasts are excluded under fair use (even on P2P transmission) as sports were of a public importance higher than the copyrights holder importance !! Theres also the fair use for copying to a medium that increases its exposure / accessibility no matter what the copyright holder wants, so I can take a copyrighted book and republish it in braille without asking permission.

In short once you publish something its copyright law that defines who can copy (and many can) not the publisher.. No matter what any terms of use, EULA tickbox, etc may say. This is despite millions spent by the recording industry to try to bend laws in their favour and make infringement theft.

Are you understanding now ?? Its NOT the publisher that decides who may copy, thats not his right, copy rights are a framework of laws that allow people to copy works in many ways the publisher may not have even considered, without their permissions. Copying outside those rights, is an infringement not theft.

If your still failing to understand then your not reading the laws, only what you wish to believe.

[LivinLOS]

If you can't be bothered to support your view, I'm afraid we'll have to file it under opinion. I've studied copyright law, and you are wrong

Precisely !!

[LivinLOS]

MarkBKK..

Please see Dowling v The US Supreme Court Ruling.

interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: ... 'an infringer of the copyright.' ...

The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

—Dowling v. United States , 473 U.S. 207, pp. 217–218

I will pop back to see if you conceed or wish to take it higher than the supreme court ??

[jazzbo]

The 2 gents Kuhn L. and Kuhn S both seem to be missing the overriding factor as regards posting on ThaiVisa.com in that you agreed to a stipulation (Item 22) when you became a Member that you would post no copyrighted material on this website. So if you then do post something, especially a work in its entirety as opposed to an excerpt, you have basically told the Admins that you make no Copyright claim to the material as posted and have essentially granted a waiver to ThaiVisa.com for its use.

That again does not mean that if you post 1 page of a 300 page novel that you no longer maintain rights to the book, just that you no longer control how that excerpt might be used... but if you post an entire short story, or song lyric, or photograph, you have essentially granted a waiver for its further use by TV.com... So again, if you want to maintain 100% rights to your creative work, don't post it.

[LivinLOS]

The 2 gents Kuhn L. and Kuhn S both seem to be missing the overriding factor as regards posting on ThaiVisa.com in that you agreed to a stipulation (Item 22) when you became a Member that you would post no copyrighted material on this website. So if you then do post something, especially a work in its entirety as opposed to an excerpt, you have basically told the Admins that you make no Copyright claim to the material as posted and have essentially granted a waiver to ThaiVisa.com for its use.

My non legal understanding is that those kind of tickbox rules are unable to take away a publishers rights to their own work. This is now getting from copyright to licensing and reproduction law, you could of course give TV the license to reproduce as it sees fit (as long as you were the copyright holder) but licensing and reproduction are distinct from copyrights.

I would say the boiler plate is clear in being a CYA for Thaivisa in asking that a user does not post copyrighted works of a 3rd party, therefore giving them a 'rule' that allows moderation of said posts, and a legal CYA against being held up for damages by a copyright holder.

Imagine a case where a poster takes a copyrighted work, and posts it on ThaiVisa. That boilerplate does not deny the initial publisher copyright over his work due to the actions of a 3rd partys boiler plate text. It does not make the work copyright free.

[jazzbo]

Kuhn L. --- This topic is about the copyright implications of posting one's one work... Boilerplate or not, you agreed to the stipulation as a condition of Membership. All I ever said is that by posting YOUR OWN works on TV.com you are granting a waiver -- I never said that you lose any Copyright privileges that you might have or, in the case of the USA, have a Copyright registered.

Part of the original question also was, once posted, does TV.com have the right to further reproduce in another website or with a Partner, and IMHO, pretty much they do... and it matters again to you whether you posted an excerpt or a creative work in its entirety.

As for the CYA, probably so but that was not the OP's question.

Edited January 17, 2010 by jazzbo

[LivinLOS]

Thaivisa cant take away copyright law, no matter what their boilerplate says.. What you create and publish you hold copyright over.

Copyright is the automatic right of the creator from the point that the first 'recorded' the work in a tangible manner. In this case, from the point you type it in on the keyboard. So this would mean that as the 'creator' of the post, you are the copyright owner.

As to further reproduction and dissemination, that would come under licensing, I see nothing in the ToS that say you give unlimited license to reproduce in other media your content. You do however give

When you post in any forum on ThaiVisa, you are granting a license to Thaivisa.com to display that post publicly

so you license you content for use on ThaiVisa.

That also implies you have the license and it also states clearly ThaiVisa only (not the nation etc).

[jazzbo]

I have read, understood and agree to these rules and conditions (Agree)

22) Not to post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles).

So if you or anyone else feels that you having posted your own Copyrighted material that Thaivisa.com and the Admins have acted inappropriately as regards your Rights, sue the sh-t out of them if you can decide upon a venue.

However, as I have said before, if you want the Members and readers to have access to your materials copyrighted or otherwise for which you have future commercial intentions, set-up a blog or website and put it the URL on your Member Profile page.

[lordsux]

The 2 gents Kuhn L. and Kuhn S both seem to be missing the overriding factor as regards posting on ThaiVisa.com in that you agreed to a stipulation (Item 22) when you became a Member that you would post no copyrighted material on this website. So if you then do post something, especially a work in its entirety as opposed to an excerpt, you have basically told the Admins that you make no Copyright claim to the material as posted and have essentially granted a waiver to ThaiVisa.com for its use.

If this were the case then every member has violated (Item 22) of the TOS they agreed to upon registering for the forum, with every single post they have made.

If for example I post an image/article to thaivisa I am therefore claiming that it has no copyright according to (Item 22), so who would be held legally responsible should the rightful copyright owner see his/her image/article being used on the forum and decide to make a copyright infringement case out of it, the user for posting the image/article? or thaivisa for not removing the copyrighted image/article?

I'm sure that (Item 22) would not hold up in a court should thaivisa try to pass the responsibility onto the user. The judge would more than likely state that thaivisa would not even exist if (Item 22) were implemented to the word.

(Item 22) is in need of some form of revision.

[LivinLOS]

On the BASIS that IANAL and this is a very grey area already (been reading this morning).

But what that fails to really understand is ALL posted material is copyrighted material.. Unless you explicitly grant permissions to copy (copy rights). ThaiVisa's terms and conditions cant change that. You DO give ThaiVisa limited license to reproduce your content within ThaiVisa, so they are covered.

So as everything anyone publishes is copyrighted material you have to fall back that the intention of that rule is to restrict the publishing of 3rd parties copyrighted works, outside of fair use doctrine.

[LivinLOS]

The 2 gents Kuhn L. and Kuhn S both seem to be missing the overriding factor as regards posting on ThaiVisa.com in that you agreed to a stipulation (Item 22) when you became a Member that you would post no copyrighted material on this website. So if you then do post something, especially a work in its entirety as opposed to an excerpt, you have basically told the Admins that you make no Copyright claim to the material as posted and have essentially granted a waiver to ThaiVisa.com for its use.

If this were the case then every member has violated (Item 22) of the TOS they agreed to upon registering for the forum, with every single post they have made.

If for example I post an image/article to thaivisa I am therefore claiming that it has no copyright according to (Item 22), so who would be held legally responsible should the rightful copyright owner see his/her image/article being used on the forum and decide to make a copyright infringement case out of it, the user for posting the image/article? or thaivisa for not removing the copyrighted image/article?

I'm sure that (Item 22) would not hold up in a court should thaivisa try to pass the responsibility onto the user. The judge would more than likely state that thaivisa would not even exist if (Item 22) were implemented to the word.

(Item 22) is in need of some form of revision.

Again exactly !!

Whats interesting is quotes.. If I quote someone I guess it is still on ThaiVisa so then the 'license to reproduce on ThaiVisa' is still valid.. But should I quote a forum post from ThaiVisa elsewhere I would be violating the posters copyright by doing so ?

Tho theres another huge grey area on "the law does not care of trivial things" the de minimis non curat lex aspect.. Allowing the beastie boys to get away with a sample uncleared.

[lordsux]

On a side note.

Every revised version of the TOS should be announced and agreed upon by the website users. The current TOS is not the same as the one that I accepted when signing up and agreeing to back in 2003

The above mentioned (Item 22) has been edited since then to include the 'except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles)' part.

[LivinLOS]

Ha.. Very true..

Its actually quite a minefield..

[jazzbo]

If this were the USA, and someone felt that their copyrighted material was being improperly posted on ThaiVisa.com or any other website, they would simply file a Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1988 (DMCA) 'Takedown Notice' and the website owner would be obliged to remove the potentially infringing material pending further review.

DMCA Summary Act at http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf ... but this ain't the USA.

[LivinLOS]

If this were the USA, and someone felt that their copyrighted material was being improperly posted on ThaiVisa.com or any other website, they would simply file a Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1988 (DMCA) 'Takedown Notice' and the website owner would be obliged to remove the potentially infringing material pending further review.

DMCA Summary Act at http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf ... but this ain't the USA.

The DMCA is to my understanding totally different..

Its a way of preventing publishing ways around software locks.. So say you come up with a way of cracking BluRay2.0 you cannot publish the 'key' to that encryption mechanism thereby allowing everyone else to enable fair use copying.. This is considered contentious in many countries that dont have large lobbying groups sponsered by the media empires setting the course of the legal system

EDIT :: Actually a quick read shows the issue your raising, the DMCA also limits the liability of service providers (ISP's and Hosts) as long as they comply with takedown requests.. A trade off of not punishing them as long as they comply without question.

Edited January 17, 2010 by LivinLOS

[jazzbo]

Pardon my saying so but unless you have the intention of publishing your Copyrighted material commercially, what is the big deal? Posting anything on ThaiVisa.com is voluntary, no one is forcing you to do so, and TV gives you an audience for your comments and meanderings so long as they follow reasonable rules of propriety. (BTW full disclosure I was suspended for a week for IM-propriety but that had to do with a PM to a Moderator)...

If you have commercial intentions for your materials and you don't post them except on your own website or blog, with a URL on your TV.com Profile page, then the whole issue of waiver, licensing, etc. becomes moot.

[LivinLOS]

Pardon my saying so but unless you have the intention of publishing your Copyrighted material commercially, what is the big deal? Posting anything on ThaiVisa.com is voluntary, no one is forcing you to do so, and TV gives you an audience for your comments and meanderings so long as they follow reasonable rules of propriety. (BTW full disclosure I was suspended for a week for IM-propriety but that had to do with a PM to a Moderator)...

If you have commercial intentions for your materials and you don't post them except on your own website or blog, with a URL on your TV.com Profile page, then the whole issue of waiver, licensing, etc. becomes moot.

Well firstly because its interesting to understand it...

Secondly because ThaiVisa was posting user content on the nation website.. Which seems to be a no no as per the discussion.

Lastly because some of the creative guys in the photog section may wish to publish a photo. but not wish to give up its copyright..

And what happend when you 'link' a photo and its hosted elsewhere ?? Its 'displayed' on ThaiVisa but embedded, its hosted outside Thaivisa.. again interesting thought experiment.

[jazzbo]

Well firstly because it's interesting to understand it... I agree, Kuhn L. It is all fascinating. All I meant was from a practical standpoint one has to have a commercial interest in one's own material before it really makes a whole lot of difference. A URL link to another website on the ThaiVisa.com Personal Profile page is not the same as 'framing' which is a whole 'nother can of worms.

My personal interest these days is with exceptions to copyright based on a print related disability in the USA, UK, and WIPO SCCR (Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights) issues as in

http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/...ticle_0061.html

[MarkBKK]

If you can't be bothered to support your view, I'm afraid we'll have to file it under opinion. I've studied copyright law, and you are wrong

Which bit?

[LivinLOS]

Possibly my final words in this thread. ''Hurrah!'' I hear you say. And why not?

Maybe you're not a native English speaker, in which case, I apologise for my lack of patience.

Which bit don't you understand?

If you take (copy) someone's work*, without paying for it or without permission, you're stealing it. It's theft. Theft (legally, in England and Wales anyway) basically means taking something without permission and denying the owner of it. What you are stealing is the money the copyright owner would have made if you had paid for what you had copied, instead of just stealing it. Laws are worded differently, for legal reasons mainly, to cover all sorts of eventualities ... and, er, backs, but the basic principle is that you are stealing something that doesn't belong to you. You are thieving something instead of paying for it. Geddit? (No, you probably don't, do you ... sigh.)

Well you know.. that bit..

Dowling v The US Supreme Court Ruling.

interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: ... 'an infringer of the copyright.' ...

The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

—Dowling v. United States , 473 U.S. 207, pp. 217–218

[MarkBKK]

... If your still failing to understand then your not reading the laws, only what you wish to believe.

I'm afraid you are clearly not reading my posts and thus confusing yourself.

I'd love to get into the differences between copyright holders, licensing, publishers, the law, fair use and what you are and are not allowed to copy for private use, but I'm afraid it might confuse you further.

I'll try one last time, in plain language, and then give up completely.

You say: ''Erm.. No its not the owner who gets to decide that, its the COPYRIGHT LAW that decides that.. You clearly dont understand what happens when you publish and give the right to copy out.''

I say (as clearly as I can): With the exception of the provisions of copyright law (fair use, copies for private use, education, etc., etc. ... whatever, the details may from country to country) the ONLY person who decides who may copy their work is the copyright holder, who may or may not also be the publisher. Yes, the legal term in most places is ''copyright infringement''. It's often more complicated (legally) than straight theft. However, what it boils down to (with the exception of the provisions of copyright law) is that you are taking something that doesn't belong to you, thus denying the copyright owner not of the work you have copied, but the money they would have made selling you a copy. Which outside a court of law, most peole would recognise as stealing. Legally (pretty much everywhere) you're right: Copyright infringement isn't exactly theft. That's what lawyers say and is said in courts of law.

Dowling v The US Supreme Court Ruling.

interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: ... 'an infringer of the copyright.' ...

The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

—Dowling v. United States , 473 U.S. 207, pp. 217–218

Interesting that as recently as last month the UK government was calling copyright infringement ''theft'', and even in your much used piece above, even the US Supreme Court recognises the similarities, even if copyright infringement is often a far more complex issue.

Definitely my last look at this thread.