Except that there's nothing bad about breaking DRM, even when respecting copyright. If anything DRM interferes with how copyright is supposed to work by being an obstacle to fair use.
> Would you say "hackers broke into the NHS and copied patient data without permission" or would you simply say they "stole" it?
It's significantly more reasonable to use "stole" and "theft" for getting your hands on private data, especially when breaking in to get to it. (Preemptive note, breaking DRM is not breaking in, it happens on your own devices.)
> It's significantly more reasonable to use "stole" and "theft" for getting your hands on private data.
Why? GP is arguing that as long as you're not depriving the original owner of access to the data, it can't be called stealing.
Well you said it's supposed to be an "alternative term". If it's valid to reword your statement as "seeding Anna's Archive is showing support for large scale DRM breaking", then everyone should be huge huge supporters of them with no downside whatsoever. Which I think is pretty different from your actual argument.
> Why? GP is arguing that as long as you're not depriving the original owner of access to the data, it can't be called stealing.
They didn't say that, they said a much simpler sentence applying to this specific context.
> everyone should be huge huge supporters of them with no downside whatsoever
The downside being, as I very clearly stated in my original comment, that you might face legal troubles for that, at least if your support entails breaking the law (which seeding torrents does).