I guess it comes down to this:
Are intellectual propery laws just? Are copyrights just? I mean, it's one thing to call taking a fruit which you haven't paid for a theft, and then taking something else intangible, like a file, theft. When you take a file, no physical entity has been removed from the producers -- they have their masters.
I think this is a debate worth closer investigation.
" guess it comes down to this:
Are intellectual propery laws just? Are copyrights just? I mean, it's one thing to call taking a fruit which you haven't paid for a theft, and then taking something else intangible, like a file, theft. When you take a file, no physical entity has been removed from the producers -- they have their masters.
"
Those are excellent questions, and they are answered in the Constitution. Some disagree with the copyright laws, and there is a venue in which they can be changed. Anyone may lobby the legislature for such changes.
As it stands today, it is illegal to make such copies. The correct response to that, if you disagree, is to work to change the laws to allow you to copy any movie, recording, or whatever, as much as you want.
As someone who has created intellectual properties, I can assure you that the master copy is not the product. The product is a copy of that master copy, whether it be a book, a magazine article, a piece of software, a recording of music, or a movie. If I have the exclusive right to make such copies, through the copyright laws, then your unauthorized copy is as much a theft as if you stole my master copy from me.
As I said earlier, you can do as you please. Just don't ask for my respect if you do steal copyright works. I doubt you care about my respect, but there it is.