^Elfwreck

Fair enough I don't want to get caught up in a semantics argument over the use of the word theft, or any other word or phrase. Still, in the hypothetical scenario I presented, at the end 7001 and individuals have copies of the book and one has paid for it. If everyone cannot agree that this represents a real material loss of income to the author I don't know what else I can say?

Perhaps another scenario both more and less hypothetical? In an entirely conceivable future where e-books represent 95%+ of the book selling market traditional publishing houses have all but disappeared and the major source for purchase of e-books is godzillamazon and a few other web outlets that function as book outlets. These take a percent of the price of each e-book in exchange for the visibility they provide as well as for handling the transactions. In this future H.K. Rowling first publishes Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Now as before the first person to buy and download the e-book turns around and uploads it to a file sharing site where it can be downloaded for free. Over 100 million smart people do so. In this scenario would Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, or any of the subsequent books ever have been written? Did H.K Rowling suffer a real material loss?

^Elfwreck & Mr. Ploppy

Hearing arguments that suggest the legality and/or morality of obtaining copyrighted e-books without paying for them is dependent on pricing of the e-books I can't help but think of this hoary old joke:

At a high society party a wealthy older gentleman approaches an attractive and elegantly dressed young lady and asks,

“Well you have sex with me for a million dollars?”

She replies in the affirmative.

The gentlemen then asks,

“Well you do it for $100 dollars?”

The young lady taking great offense replies,

“Certainly not! What do you take me for, a whore?”

The gentlemen responds,

“We have already established that. Now we are just negotiating the price.”