Of course it does. 'Theft' and 'stealing' are English words that have definitions. You can look them up in these books called 'dictionaries.' If there is no loss (i.e., $0.00 damages) then there is also no theft in any meaningful sense.
The content provider loses copy control.
OK. And it may be that they have had their Constitutionally-recognized "Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" violated. That's serious enough without using inflammatory, inaccurate language about "stealing."
Personally, I'm of the opinion that if someone wants to exercise "copy control" they shouldn't distribute any copies.
Just look at book sellers.
They adamently work against ANY digitizing of the books as much as humanly possible.
Quite frankly I would rather pay $1 for a digital copy of an “just read it” book (contrasted to a book I want to collect) so I can cary it in my PDA for reading or computer reading it for me when I drive.
Sorry but your definition of theft is wrong. Here’s from that book called “dictionary” for theft:
an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
and here’s for stealing:
: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully
Violating copy right is unlawful taking of property. There doesn’t have to be a loss, that’s your own false addition to the definition of the word.
I’m not using inflammatory inaccurate language. I’m using TRUE language. Violation of copy right is theft and stealing.