1st off... stealing intellectual property is still stealing. I really can't believe we're actually discussing this. You're own linked definition had plenty of examples where people can 'steal' something without taking it somewhere else (as you put it)! Like a baseball player stealing a base - or someone stealing a kiss. You need to understand that if you make up your own definitions to words, then you can't have a conversation with people. How can we talk about what Kim did when we can't agree what the word 'steal' means.... even after reading the same definition?!
Taking or using IP without permission is stealing. Here's a link... they even have a section on piracy.
https://www.upcounsel.com/intellectual-property-theft
2nd - the shareholders aren't always the victim in insider trading. The victim depends on the case. In many cases the 'victim' is the person who would have held the shares if the inside trader hadn't bought them. You're only considering the case where a stock goes down. When it goes up the shareholders aren't victims.
"Stealing a base" and "stealing a kiss" are two perfect examples of english mannerisms. They are idiosyncrasies that took the word steal and applied it stylistically.
"You need to understand that if you make up your own definitions to words, then you can't have a conversation with people."
This is especially ironic because those examples you gave were created and re-interpreted, as mannerisms often do, the meaning of the words.
How about we step back from these cultural perversions of the english language you are using and just go strait to the legal term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#"Theft"
"
Copyright infringement is the use of
works protected by
copyright law without permission, infringing certain
exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the protected work, or to make
derivative works."
By definition, it's not theft. It's Copyright infringement. The link you provided is to a website that makes it's money off people hiring lawyers, it has an interest in calling it "theft" because it get more money that way but in fact they are not using the legal term, they are using a buzz word that gets people like you going.
The details
"
"Theft"
Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as
theft. In copyright law, infringement does not refer to theft of physical objects that take away the owner's possession, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization.
[13] Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft. For instance, the
United States Supreme Court held in
Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property. Instead,
interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft,
conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: '[...] an infringer of the copyright.'"
The court said that in the case of copyright infringement, the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law – certain
exclusive rights – is invaded, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held.
[1]"
In other words, copyright theft requires someone to use that copyright for their own means. This includes making reverse engineered software, selling a copyed written product as your own, and making derivative works without permission among other things. Simply copying the data does not qualify as copyright infringement
So legally the law recognizes the different between theft and infringement, regardless of your English diction choices.
In fact here is a 2nd source just in case you aren't convinced
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Illegal+copying
"Violation of a copyright is called infringement.
Any unauthorized copying of the work is subject to an infringement suit and criminal charges."
Clearly examples of culture's artful interpretations of the word "steal" do not overcome the legal definition that it has always been.
2nd - the shareholders aren't always the victim in insider trading. The victim depends on the case. In many cases the 'victim' is the person who would have held the shares if the inside trader hadn't bought them. You're only considering the case where a stock goes down. When it goes up the shareholders aren't victims.
I already covered this
"either the perpetrator is taking money from the same pool of money investors are in or investors are loosing money while one person of benefiting."
In this case, a stock goes up because a company is about to do something and has knowledge of this that is gives to an insider. People who sell during the period that the insider had this knowledge knowing the stock price would increase are the victims as they loose money. A court will consider any equitable loss from investors during the entire period the insider had the information for review, typically using the difference in stock purchases and sales as a basis for damages.
I'd recommend you read this on how damages for insider trading cases on calculated
https://repository.uchastings.edu/c...ir=1&article=2196&context=faculty_scholarship
