That's exactly my point! You see the owner of the property gets to make the call in conjuction with the laws.

For example, if every night after I park my car on a public street someone comes and takes my car and drives it around and when they finish they bring it back and park it where I left it.

Then based on your suggestion that every aspect of theft must be fulfilled. (When I go to get my car, it's there and there is not any physical damage then your suggesting that this does not constitute an act of theft?)

Now,

what if I'm aware of this nightly activity and I call the police and inform them that someone is taking my car every night.

The person gets busted with my car.

I cry theft = I did not give my permission for them to use my car.

The guys lawyer argues:

1. It (the car) was there every morning when I needed to use it.
2. They didn't damage it.
3. They were going to bring it back.

The judge scratches his head and says...well based on the facts presented in this case, I don't see where you were wronged. The court has decided to ignore your claim of theft because technically they did'nt steal your car they just used it and you didn't suffer any consequences as a result of this so called "unauthorized use" so have a nice day!

I only wish it was that simple -- and I'm sure the people who have ended up in court over this issue probably wished the same thing.

All propaganda aside--

There are several industries who are having problems with their traditional business models and they are looking for ways to survive.

These types of issues can be discussed passionately between peers such as ourselves. However the real battles are taking place in courtrooms. All though people might not like it. These industries did their homework and they do have valid legal protection for their products and anyone who thinks otherwise is wasting his or her time throwing stones at an iron tank.

__________________
Lee Evans, President
LeeWare Development
http://www.leeware.com