The OP explains that since nothing is actually removed it's not theft. I disagree.
It depends whether you're referring to your own personal definition of "theft" or a legal or common definition (of which there are many). If the former, no-one can quarrel with you, of course ;-)
If the latter, in some jurisdictions, permanent deprivation of property is required for "theft", so copying files would not count. Where permanent deprivation is not required and non-tangible property counts, then sure, it'd be theft.
Even forgetting the definition of theft, sure, no-one should be able to obtain and use your code without permission, but if they were to do so, it doesn't necessarily mean they have committed the legal offence of "theft." You are free to consider it such but legally it may not be such.
I didn't mean to get into the semantics of "theft". If you notice, I said "To me I'd consider that theft".
What is significant, I believe, is the moral weight of categorizing it as theft, rather than specific technical definitions and jurisdictions. I believe the same context is meant by the Obama administration's choice of words. We are at a time in history for which there is no precedent for all the things we are able to do. It's for this reason I bring up these arguments with an audience which seems to largely favor making free use of any product deemed fair game by their own justification.
OK, I appreciate your argument now :) It is cool for you to frame things within your own value system and I can't argue against your opinion, but it's a shame that the executive branch is being lax with the definitions of words that have special definitions in their realm.
I think they're trying to be very clear about how they view digital piracy. It's like Bush trumpeting "terrorists" or "axis of evil". You can apply a terrorist label broadly or narrowly to a person, but there is little doubt about how seriously the govt. might take action based on such a word. I think it's a similar thing here with the word "theft". If existing laws don't hold up to what they feel is fair and just, they may seek to craft new ones that do.
It depends whether you're referring to your own personal definition of "theft" or a legal or common definition (of which there are many). If the former, no-one can quarrel with you, of course ;-)
If the latter, in some jurisdictions, permanent deprivation of property is required for "theft", so copying files would not count. Where permanent deprivation is not required and non-tangible property counts, then sure, it'd be theft.
Even forgetting the definition of theft, sure, no-one should be able to obtain and use your code without permission, but if they were to do so, it doesn't necessarily mean they have committed the legal offence of "theft." You are free to consider it such but legally it may not be such.