[gmw]

Epiphany! Well, maybe.

I'm thinking the confusion over the concept of copyright as a property comes from the fact that many people speak of copyright infringement as theft. Thus a person could be forgiven for thinking we are saying that the crime is theft of the copyright property, but this is not the case (the theft is of a benefit of the property, not the property itself).

An imperfect example of the distinction (I'm not saying this is exactly the same thing) comes with land ownership: Trespass can be breaking the law, but the person isn't stealing your land (other than what sticks to their shoe), they are only depriving you of certain rights associated with land ownership (rights defined by and enshrined in law, by those tricky lawyer people - you no longer have to raise an army to defend your farm).

Or we might try another land-based comparison: When your neighbour moves the boundary fence they haven't stolen your land - it's still there - they have merely assumed use of benefits of your land, and deprived you of the same.

Like I said, neither of those are perfect analogies, but I think they demonstrate that copyright can be (and is) a property, but that infringement of copyright is not the theft of that property; it is theft of a benefit the owner is entitled to from that property.