[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

@Stringer
The most important of those definitions involve a 'something' being deprived from some other entity. Impossible to apply any of those definitions to the infinitely reproducible. You may as well accuse someone of stealing your oxygen if they breathe too closely to you.

That's why it's "copyright violation," not "theft." Although the moral difference between the two is not that large. At least it wouldn't be if copyright law was broadly seen as actually serving the purpose of copyright law. In the US, that purpose is

Originally Posted by US Constitution, article 1 sect. 8

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts

and the mechanism is

by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

My personal opinion is that the latest extension in copyright terms clearly exceeds any reasonable implementation of that purpose. Sadly, the US congress and the supremes don't agree with me.

What do they know, anyway! But I digress.

When you engage in a copyright violation, you are depriving the author of the "exclusive right" mentioned above. Which is taking something from them, even though it is not taking "some thing."

More importantly, when copyright law is in reasonable balance, you are subverting the public policy deal that is intended to maximize the general public welfare. Reasonable people may disagree about what changes (if any) would put copyright law "in reasonable balance." They may also disagree about what would maximize the general public welfare.

I would favor treating copyright violation as being roughly like (non-violent) theft of a similar amount of money -- if (and only if) the system preserved all fair-use rights and also actually let works go out of copyright. In the current legal setup (in the US) the DMCA interferes with fair-use and the ever-extending term of copyright threatens the second.

Write your congress-critters! Tell them to fix it -- sanely, of course.

Xenophon