Also notice how they talk about "stealing" in-app content. And i thought this term did not apply when only copying stuff without depriving the original owner of it...

I don't know the site but I wonder if they'd say the same if it was for downloading music or movies and not apps.

Note that i'm NOT a tenant of the american strong copyright.

Can we just skip the debate over the definition of stealing? It's tedious and pedantic, and I don't think it's very enlightening for anyone.

I agree. I think a lot more of us would be on the same page if we accepted that the developer is being deprived of a sale.

Since that is perhaps the greatest point of contention in the debate, of course it would make the discussion a lot easier if one side simply gave up and accepted the other side's position.

I was trying to, oh well nevermind. My point is that, the developer created it. He demands that for each license that is being used, he expects a sale. And we are denying him that sale by talking about "theft" and "copy" and all that.

Yes, and plenty of other people would disagree, saying that most pirates wouldn't have bought a copy anyway, so it's not denying him a sale. This thing you want everybody to just agree on is the central matter of the debate.

Good point. I agree. But if they wouldn't have bought a copy, then they weren't entitled to using it in the first place correct?

I mean, companies generally prefer you pirate their products than their competitors. But if we're going to be absolutely critical, the company can claim "If you aren't going to pay us, you have no right to use our product. You used our product without paying us."

Yes, they weren't entitled to use it. Yet they do use it. So what to do? It's not a lost sale just because they're not entitled to use it.

>Can we just skip the debate over the definition of stealing?

Sure. But can we all agree developers are free to choose how they license their work?

If an app developer structures their app to be free with an in-app purchase for the full content, you don't think they're being deprived of anything if someone bypasses the full-content-payment?

No. Because you are assuming that the person would have made a purchase had it not been free.

Beyond that, the answer to "is copying equivalent to stealing?" is "no", because stealing involves depriving a person of their property and thus preventing them from selling it to a party that would pay.

If I steal a snickers bar from a shelf, the store owner has one less snickers bar regardless of whether I might have paid for it were I not able to steal it.

But copying doesn't deprive the owner of their property at all. It simply creates a new copy of it. If I copy an mp3, the record label and artist aren't deprived of anything.

And, thus, the law makes a distinction.

This is, legally, the correct interpretation of the difference between "stealing" and "infringement", at least in the US.

However, the copyright owner is being deprived of their exclusive right to the content. They have the right to control who uses the content and for what (exclusive of fair use).

Sure. And that's why civil and criminal law provide remedies for wronged content owners.

But no-one's arguing that copying isn't wrong or a civil and possibly even criminal act. I'm explaining the distinction between infringement and theft, as it's far more relevant than the ultimately unknowable "whether or not the unjustly enriched party may have bought a license".

> If I copy an mp3, the record label and artist aren't deprived of anything.

Was the point I was disagreeing with. (Especially as we're being pedantic about the legal issues).

Sure. In stealing a snickers and caught, im probably not even arrested. If I am, it's a small charge, maybe a few hundred dollars with the night in lockup.

Copying a single song has punishments up to $150,000 with possible federal jailtime at that?!

One hell of a distinction.

And you're assuming that the person would not make the purchase were it to cost money. The fact is that the developer is being deprived a) their exclusive right to their content b) the possibility of making a future sale (which is of some non-zero probabilistic value).

Well that's only correct if the user and app are in isolated environments. If the purchase is currency in a competitive multiplayer game, then the game experience of others suffer. If there are hosted elements like server-side data to run, store and maintain, than the developer takes on those additional costs without compensation as well.

Of course stealing means exactly the same thing as copyright infringement.

You know. Like how I copyright infringed this car the other day.

You mean like this: http://boingboing.net/2006/01/12/vw-presses-ridiculou.html?

Given the info he's collecting from each device, if he's raided and server(s) confiscated, and that info given to Apple, I wonder if Apple will suspend the App Store accounts of those involved in in-app purchasing theft?

Preventing users who steal content from ever being able to legitimately access content is probably not a shrewd business move. Especially when alternatives exist.

Can't find references quickly, but in the past Apple has banned accounts of fraud victims, after they reported their accounts being hijacked. Victims, not perpetrators. Three fraud/hijack reports -> ban.

It's been 11 hours since you posted that. Apparently you can't find references slowly either.