This is a special post for quick takes by Kabir Kumar. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
Literally steal? No, except in cases that you probably don't mean such as where it's part of a building and someone physically removes that part of the building. "Steal" in the colloquial but not in the legal sense, sure.
Legally it's usually more like tortious interference, e.g. you have a contract that provides the service of using that space to park your car, and someone interferes with that by parking their own car there and deprives you of its use in an economically damaging way (such as having to pay for parking elsewhere).
Sometimes it's trespass, such as when you actually own the land and can legally forbid others from entering.
It is also relatively common for it to be both: tortious interference with the contracted user of the parking space, and trespass against the lot owner who sets conditions for entry that are being violated.
1Kabir Kumar
The main thing I don't understand is the full thought processes that leads to not seeing this as stealing opportunity from artists by using their work non consensually, without credit or compensation.
I'm trying to understand if folk who don't see this as stealing don't think that stealing opportunity is a significant thing, or don't get how this is stealing opportunity, or something else that I'm not seeing.
I'm trying to understand if folk who don't see this as stealing don't think that stealing opportunity is a significant thing, or don't get how this is stealing opportunity, or something else that I'm not seeing.
And what arguments have they raised? Whether you agree or feel they hold water or not is not what I'm asking - I'm wondering what arguments have you heard from the "it is not theft" camp? I'm wondering if they are different from the ones I've heard