>Why do opponents of IP rights keep saying it isn't stealing? //
Because we're looking at the legal definitions of theft (for which stealing is a synonym) in various jurisdictions as opposed to the Merriam-Webster definition.
In my current jurisdiction the Theft Act 1968 Section 1(1) defines theft/stealing thus:
"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly."
In legal matters it's preferably to be precise so you can be more certain what the exact ramifications are.
In any case the man-in-the-street, I warrant, would remark that stealing someone's property meant you had taken it away. For example, you steal my car. No one without an axe to grind is going to say that I still have access to and full unrestricted use of a car if you've stolen it.
I've read caselaw where the key element as to whether theft had occurred was whether the goods were carried off. If you attempt to steal something but don't actually end up denying the owner of their goods (eg you drop it before leaving the premises) then you've not stolen anything and the charges are lessened [if not negated].
Reading California state law, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen..., it's clear that US states apply a similar test of whether goods are "taken" (stolen, taken and carried off) in order to describe an action as theft.
Because we're looking at the legal definitions of theft (for which stealing is a synonym) in various jurisdictions as opposed to the Merriam-Webster definition.
In my current jurisdiction the Theft Act 1968 Section 1(1) defines theft/stealing thus:
"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly."
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/1
In legal matters it's preferably to be precise so you can be more certain what the exact ramifications are.
In any case the man-in-the-street, I warrant, would remark that stealing someone's property meant you had taken it away. For example, you steal my car. No one without an axe to grind is going to say that I still have access to and full unrestricted use of a car if you've stolen it.
I've read caselaw where the key element as to whether theft had occurred was whether the goods were carried off. If you attempt to steal something but don't actually end up denying the owner of their goods (eg you drop it before leaving the premises) then you've not stolen anything and the charges are lessened [if not negated].
Reading California state law, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen..., it's clear that US states apply a similar test of whether goods are "taken" (stolen, taken and carried off) in order to describe an action as theft.