Software development and sales (Part 1. Copying is not theft)

In this series of articles we will talk about the creation of programs, however, the described should be applicable to music, as well as to any other form of intellectual work that can be digitized. The article was written not only by the user, but also by the software vendor (developed in-house).

In this article, for a start, I would like to dot the i's and explain the simple (seemingly) wording:
Illegal copying is not theft.

This is obvious to some, but it may be useful for many to find out why.

Let's look into Ozhegov's dictionary:
To steal - criminalize, kidnap someone else's.
“Criminal” - does not cause questions - in many countries it is illegal, and therefore criminal.
But “assign, steal” - can not be used in relation to programs ...
ASSIGN - Take possession, voluntarily take in their own property, give for their own.
')
Maybe for someone it will be news, but even a person who legally bought the program does not become its owner (that is, it does not become its property). The right to use legally - receives, but the right of ownership does not. It is as it were written in the very license agreements that are automatically skipped during installation. ;)

It remains to "give for your own" - Ie in fact, correctly called the thief of the one who in the windows installation files will change the microsoft inscription to “Vasya Pupkin and Co.”. But the one who is not trying to give the piece as his thief cannot be called anything ...

The question is so why is it often called the thief of the one who copies the program?
Back in the past - in the 90s ...
I have a toy on my computer (for example, Doom), but my friend does not have it. A friend comes to me and says - write down, please, I also want to play at home too. Of course, the game was recorded, and a friend left satisfied that I got the game and I was pleased that I made my friend enjoyable. Those. impressions are positive .

However, after all, this situation was (conditionally) and the third party - the creators of Doom. Did they feel bad? No (of course, if you don’t consider that “once it’s not good it means it became bad”) However, they could have gained a positive (in the form of money), if I had not given a game to a friend and suggested where he could buy it (or rather buy the right to play it) ... The only thing that the creators received was advertising their brand, but that's another story ...

But what about the theft, then? That's how.
Stealing is bad, everyone knows that.
Those. the theft has a very negative color , so if you call copying - stealing - you can set the mood of society to this phenomenon. Those. The chances of profit of the creators of electronic content in the case of replacing one (!) words - greatly increase. Those. I think it is not necessary to explain that it was not the users who thought up to call copying - theft.

The same applies to piracy.
Those. before, pirates were villains, and the image of a pirate was associated with evil, which means that by calling piracy a phenomenon, you can give it a negative color .

The trouble is that when a phenomenon that previously gave a positive mood is called a negative word, not only the phenomenon loses its positive, but the word loses its negative (in some circles this is called “anchor collapse”).
Those. note - the image of a pirate is often no longer "a murderer, a thief, etc.", but "a romantic, a rebel against the government, etc."
In the case of piracy, this is not so scary, because real pirates are long gone. But in the case of “theft” this is already more serious. Because the repainting of the word “theft” into positive colors does not bring anything good in itself.
upd1: It turns out there are still pirates, although not on the scale that in past centuries.

Summarizing, I repeat the initial thought:
Illegal copying is not theft.

“But how to call him?” Some may ask.
Why call him differently? For example, I am satisfied with the name “illegal copying” ... At least for the time being, it is illegal.

upd2: Judging by the comments, many have the impression that I consider “illegal copying” to be correct. This is not true. In this article I only explain the incorrect use of the word theft in relation to “illegal copying”.

upd3:
FAQ
Pirate stole my lost profits! The definition of the word stole is in the article - but to steal something without appropriating it for yourself is impossible. I liked the idea of ​​one of the commentaries very much: “The lost profit is such a profit, which does not exist in reality, but which is very pitiful to lose.”
Author - why do you justify piracy? I am only opposed to replacing words. Why the replacement of words is a dangerous thing described in detail in the article. Here is a complementary comment .

upd4: Transferred the topic to the thematic blog.
upd5: Perhaps Habr users who liked this article will be interested in visiting the site of my non-commercial project freeterra.org , which is working (albeit slow so far) to improve the current situation in the country. About copyright, in particular here
upd6: Temporarily I have no opportunity to respond to your comments, up to this point I tried to answer everyone, explain, explain ... Almost all the questions that arise after reading are already discussed in the comments (just try using ctrl + f to search for the desired question).
upd7: I gave an example from the 90s when personally in my circles I didn’t even think that copying could be called someone stealing. However, for the sake of justice, I should note that I learned about the fact that they sometimes called it that way earlier (19th century). This article can be found via ctrl + f "Do we really have no legal authority to rob such a robbery?" In the context of the case involving the distribution of copies.
I also think it will be interesting to add the following possibly worthy version of the counter argument to this article.
The right to distribute the program is the exclusive right of the copyright holder, and therefore the copying right, he assigns it to himself. So the argument “no assignment — no theft” is no longer valid. Those. in this case, it’s about the theft of law (which, personally, the brain makes me much more than the theft of lost profits). In general, these comments attempt to deal with this issue.