> The point that is missed when engaging in these word games, of course, is that in common parlance, "theft" is used to mean any act that deprive others of something.
Indeed, all your a,b,c) examples include "with intent to deprive [the owner] of such property or services". And it is a necessary condition for it to be considered theft. If not it is not theft. It might be fraud, but that is different from theft! In particular the sentencing for larceny and theft have traditionally been harsher afaik almost everywhere. Most times, if you simply refuse to pay for something, you can settle up by paying for it (assuming no one else has been deprived of the same thing as a direct result of you not paying) -- and that will be the end of it. Possibly with a fine in extreme cases.
> In this case, it is the rightful payment for the value provided by the intellectual property that has been appropriated.
Indeed, all your a,b,c) examples include "with intent to deprive [the owner] of such property or services". And it is a necessary condition for it to be considered theft. If not it is not theft. It might be fraud, but that is different from theft! In particular the sentencing for larceny and theft have traditionally been harsher afaik almost everywhere. Most times, if you simply refuse to pay for something, you can settle up by paying for it (assuming no one else has been deprived of the same thing as a direct result of you not paying) -- and that will be the end of it. Possibly with a fine in extreme cases.
> In this case, it is the rightful payment for the value provided by the intellectual property that has been appropriated.
The what now? ;-)