If I drive past the vegetable stand and don’t buy anything, the farmer *still* isn’t receiving pay for his labor. Is that also stealing?
_______
No, but I am at something of a loss as to how you think this relates to the topic at hand. In this example you provide, the person driving by without stopping is not enjoying the fruits of the farmer’s labor.
In the case of an illegally downloaded song, the person is enjoying the fruits of the artist’s labor, and for reasons known only to themselves (we have read a number of justifications on this thread), they choose not to compensate the owner. How is that not stealing?
I denied that stealing produce is analogous to obtaining free music because the provider loses stock in the former case but not the latter. You replied that it is stealing because the provider is not compensated. I am pointing out that a "stolen" song and a non-sale are, in practical terms, exactly the same thing as far as the music label is concerned (in both cases, they lose nothing and gain nothing). If you're going to let them prosecute for the former, why not the latter?
In this example you provide, the person driving by without stopping is not enjoying the fruits of the farmer’s labor.
How do you know? Maybe he enjoys the smell of the fresh produce wafting through his vents. Maybe he stops on the side of the road and takes a photograph of the beautiful fields. Anyway, since when is 'enjoying' something a crime? People enjoy listening to songs they don't pay for on the radio all the time. Are they stealing?
In the case of an illegally downloaded song, the person is enjoying the fruits of the artist’s labor, and for reasons known only to themselves (we have read a number of justifications on this thread), they choose not to compensate the owner. How is that not stealing?
Because the artist loses nothing, zero, zilch, nada?