I think they're talking about appropriation, as in, NBC claims that Apple's graphic is really their own. That's why it's "stealing."
So if NBC was claiming they owned the Apple artwork, its stealing because that ownership (if uncontested) allows them to collect royalties, etc.
(at least in the UK, I understand the same happened in the US)
I'm surprised. When the issue of auto-theft came up (many years ago) the ruling was very different. Legally speaking if you took a car for a spin and dumped it (back with the owner, or whatever) this was technically not theft - as there was no intent to permanently deprive the owner of the car.
I'm pretty sure they ruled it was still considered theft - off the back of similar legislation changes in the UK.
We always complain about the fact that laws don't keep up with the modern world. So why insist that the definition of theft stays in the dark ages? :)
The analogy you bring up is more akin to vandalism in my mind. Theft, in the modern sense, means taking something that isn't yours.
(I'm not necessarily agreeing with the theory that this is theft; just putting out a data point I happen to know of)
This is a tough topic because the word steal does have a valid semantic meaning in this context, and anyone who argues with common use of language always comes off as pedantic ('what is an iTouch? It's an iPod Touch!!!'), but its important for those of us who understand how digital media works continue to continue emphasizing the real world differences between theft and copyright infringement.
Theft of services still implies the consumption of someone else's resources. By not paying for the service, the provider faces tangible losses (because the opportunity to service a paying customer is lost). In this particular case, Apple loses absolutely nothing. The designer is still wrong (and IMO, plagiarizing copyrighted design assets merits termination), but Apple's capacity to service their customers is not hindered by this.
I can dig up another one if you really want :)
- The law wasn't really reconsidered to deal with copyright infringement. It was changed to deal with situations where you broke into a computer and took copies of data (interesting to note that this was not actually a new issue at the time; if you broke into someone's office and took photos of data they couldn't charge you with theft - the reason it was changed this time I am not sure on, probably just the prevailing mood).
- Quite how much the extent of information loss on a public thing like an image (for which you have to undertake no infiltration or transformative process to recover) applies is largely untested, because this stuff is broadly dealt with under copyright infringement
- The extent to which money - both loss of, and the making of (by the infringer) - comes into it is undetermined.
- This is not a new change. It happened years ago (as in at least the 90's, perhaps before).
The real bottom line is that much of our laws are inadequate in dealing with the internet. :)
But; "theft" is no longer defined, in the UK at least, as the GP indicated.