La Volpe
Sage
You seem to basing loss on cost. But that doesn't really work because one can steal something acquired for free.
If you got the item for free, it still has an intrinsic value, even if it's just the materials it's made of, or a personal or sentimental value. Ergo, when it's stolen, you lose either the monetary value of what it was worth (say, a toaster that was gifted to you), or you lose the item that you held dear (say, you late grandfather's handkerchief).
But I can't imagine you'd be angry if someone brought a duplicator and copied your gift toaster. You'd still have the original. Ergo, the loss, whether it be financial or sentimental et al, is still the issue.
So yes, you can steal a fallen leaf from someone's yard, but could that really be regarded in the same light as stealing a lawnmower?
As for the example at the end, that turns on the question of what can be done with a "copy." A lawfully obtained copy can be distributed freely. But here's the primary difference between physical and digital that breaks down the analogy. When there is a physical copy that can generally only be read by one person at a time. And can only be given to a fairly limited number of people before the book becomes readable. However, with a digital copy, that can be distributed to an unlimited number of people for an unlimited duration. The potential for harm is much greater.
Let's run this scenario with Bob and Fred again. Fred buys an ebook. He reads the ebook, and enjoys it so much that he recommends the book to Bob. So he copies the ebook file and emails it to Bob. Bob reads the book (that Fred is no longer reading). Let's add James here too. Bob finishes the book, and emails it to James. James reads it (while neither Bob or Fred is reading it). After that, it is not copied again.
So following your assertions, none of the three did any pirating? Or are you saying that lending (or giving) a book to a friend is like piracy, but is excusable?
This is why distribution of a digital copy is theft, perhaps not under the common law definition, but the potential to harm is so great that it should be treated as a theft. Certainly not by the same standards as theft of personal property, but as a theft of intellectual property.
I want to agree, but the way you're saying this doesn't sit right. You say that piracy should be treated as theft, and then directly after that, you say that it should be treated by different standards.
I don't think we should be lumping theft and piracy together. They are different things with different consequences.
I think we all know who the biggest pirate in the world is. Martin, he even stole Tolkien's R.R.
Source:
-snip-
That was hilarious.