Suppose you hired a consulting firm to write a report, and they delivered the report but not the internal conversations they had when developing it. You exploit a vulnerability in their phone system to get those conversations. You can argue over semantics of whether “theft” is what you did, maybe the right word is “espionage” or “spying”, but that either way we probably agree you are guilty of something? Paying for the final product didn’t entitle you to see how it was made, unless that was part of the agreement.

Anyway, you can distinguish this from the debate over copyright.

The only person calling it stealing is the author of this article, so this is a pointless discussion. The majority of this thread is just arguing with themselves.

Liberating!

No, you paid for the end result. The thought process is a step in between, a function. Think about it, who should get charged if the answer you received comes from a cache? Thinking tokens are the complexity-of-the-problem cost. I mean, you may not agree but both are valid points of view.

> stop using morally charged terms made up by future monopolists

Lets not gloss over this claim. Being: “Stealing is a morally charged term made up by future monopolists.”

I strongly disagree. Stealing is not a made up term and property rights are foundational for any society. Your take is at least sensationalist if not malicious.