More on TechnologyTell: Gadget News | Apple News
Living on the Long Tail: Intellectual property and the e-publisher’s world
March 24, 2007 | 2:03 am
|
By Rob Preece, founder of BooksForABuck.com
Moderator’s note: Photo is of Maxwell Perkins, who, as an editor for Charles Scribner’s Sons, added value to the works of such immortals as F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway and Thomas Wolfe. – DR
I’m as fond of free books as anyone. Project Gutenberg is a wonderful service, and I am grateful for all of the volunteers and contributors who’ve made this resource possible.
So many great works of the past were either inaccessible or available only in high-cost collectible books until Gutenberg began its epic construction of the new universal library.
The glories of the weed-out
That said, I’m also a publisher. It’s my job to weed through a vast host of not-so-good books and pick out the ones that stand out, that represent story-telling at its best. It’s also my job to work with the authors of these very best books, to help them hone their talents, to strip out the fluff, and to then convert the polished novels into a variety of formats (primarily electronic but also paper).
In addition, it’s my job to help these select and talented authors earn money for all of the hundreds of hours they’ve put into their novels by marketing their works, by arranging distribution for their works, and by paying them regularly. For every book I publish, I probably reject a dozen. For me, every book I publish represents a hundred or more man-hours of research, editing, and production—and then there’s marketing.
E compared to P
In the traditional world of paper publishing, a book went on sale, remained on the shelves of bookstores for a month or three, and then vanished. Velocity was key and “out of print” a meaningful and painful prospect. But we in the e-publishing world live on the Long Tail. Our books remain on sale indefinitely—something we believe is an advantage to authors and to readers who can now buy the entire work of an author rather than hunting fruitlessly through used bookstores for early works. Every quarter, I pay out royalties to authors for works I published for them years ago, as new readers discover them, and as word of mouth allows them to gain in popularity.
So I’m a big believer in intellectual property. Just as a mason who builds her own home has an ownership over her work, so an author has an equity stake in her creation; and so, too does the publisher who represents this author to the world. Constitutionally, the government offered a bargain—it would help preserve our rights to our work, but only if we accepted a limited period of monopoly, after which time these works would become available for free to all. That seems fair, although certainly one could argue over the period of exclusive use of rights (I personally think the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act took things too far, but certainly an author should have exclusive rights for decades, at least).
The bottom line
Here’s the bottom line—neither I nor any other e-publisher could stay in business if my author’s rights expired after a year or two. I couldn’t afford to market these works, negotiate distribution deals, or pay my editors to help perfect the novels. Living on the Long Tail, I find that the majority of my sales take place after the first year of publication. It’s oh-so-tempting to wish that wonderful books could all be free, but authors have to eat too. E-publishing is a radical innovation that means books can be published without being approved by huge conglomerates, that you don’t need to be rich to get out your message, and copyright is the primary protection we small publishers and our authors have. Advertiser support, the major means of offering “free” content generates to the lowest common denominator–is this really what we want out of our literature?
Moderator’s note: Rob runs BooksForABuck.com
|
Previous
SUBSCRIBE TO RSS
Comments:
It is certainly possible for someone to object to the use of the term “theft” when applied to copyrights or ideas because of an adherence to an ideological or philosophical framework that does not recognize “theft” applied to non-corporeal entities. Yet, etymologically the use of “theft” to copyrights and ideas has attestations dating back more than 100 years. Here are four examples:
Since O’Toole is my pseudonym I must object to the last example which is scurrilous.
The question of “what is theft” hinges upon whether the unauthorized distribution of a copyrighted work diminishes the economic value of the copyrighted work. In many cases, it does not do this; some have even suggested that it enhances the value of the original copyrighted work.
Wow, what an active discussion. Thanks both to those who have supported my points, and for those who have so enthusiastically explained why they disagree.
I try not to get into semantics–theft vs. unlawful copying, property vs. protected under copyright. I posted my blog entry (with David’s help–thanks David) because I wanted to explain something about my business–the book business.
It may be true that there are different business models for writing and distributing books. I’ve heard several suggested, although I’m sure that I’ll leave some out. Here are the ones, though, that pop to my mind:
1. Sell books one by one (the current model)
2. Assume authors need to have a day job and will write anyway (and that editors are really not needed)
3. Shareware–make books freely available with a suggested contribution
4. Advertiser/sponsor support
5. Government/philanthropist support for authors
Starting at the bottom, Number 5 is certainly attractive to some authors. Who wouldn’t like getting a government check every month for writing. It’s also the way several of the great literary works of the world, the Greek tragedies, were written. Problem–what if you don’t agree with the government? What if you’re not selected by the government? What if what you want to read is not produced by the government or supported by rich philanthropists? Must you be out of luck?
Number 4–advertiser-support. Here we have the wonderful world of television as an inspiring example of quality. (Yuck). Also, the model breaks down if viewers can’t be compelled to watch the ads–hence Hollywood’s fear of Tivo. Again, will advertiser-supported works give readers what they want, or advertisers what they want?
Number 3–Shareware. Talk to shareware software makers. At least they have the advantage that people continue using software day after day–and put up with the nags day after day. I actually attempted to base BooksForABuck.com on a shareware model when I opened our doors–and quickly learned that people simply won’t pay.
Number 2–Although most authors have day jobs, many are also motivated by hope that all of their work will eventually be repaid and that they’ll be able to devote their lives to doing what they love. I can’t prove that if you take away that hope you’ll take away the writing, but I believe this to be the case. And few books indeed require no editing.
Number 1–Perhaps, like democracy (the worst government possible except all the others), we’re stuck with a business model that involves readers paying for what they read. Authors who satisfy reader interest are bought, rebought, and rewarded. Readers can buy what they want, and refuse to purchase from businessmen or individuals they disagree with or whose business models they disapprove of.
By the way, as Robert mentioned several comments back, I do believe in setting prices low enough to discourage illegal copying. I fear, though, that no price would be low enough to eliminate it completely if we didn’t continue to remind people that by copying, you’re taking food out of the author’s mouth.
Rob Preece
Publisher, http://www.BooksForABuck.com
“The original definition of “Piracy” is robbery on the high seas. The derived definition of “Piracy” is copyright violation. Robbery is defined as theft.”
The derived definition is a hyperbole. It is similar to when people call you a murderer when you are pro-copyright, because you are “murdering” one’s right to copy. When you want to discuss this in the form of insults and gross exagerations, fine, but I don’t think I want to talk with murderers.
As Garson shows, piracy was an hyperbole used in the past as a pseudonym for plagiarism in similar debates by those who also lacked actual arguments.
> The original definition of “Piracy” is robbery
> on the high seas. The derived definition of
> “Piracy” is copyright violation. Robbery is
> defined as theft.
> Therefore copyright violation is theft.
Here is the description of the exact error you’re making:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
This kind of manipulation with words is imho one of the most dishonest types of rhetoric.
> patents can be used as a bludgeon, but
> the excess of this kind of usage is much
> better controlled these days than in the
> day of Thomas Edison and the motion
> picture industry.
I couldn’t care less about Edison, but I do care about me and my company. Any number of large companies could at any time they wish crush my company using patents. And I have not knowingly violated any non-trivial patent. Now, this problem with patents is not a problem with copyright. This is what I’ve been trying to say, but you refuse to listen to what I actually say and instead you make straw-man arguments.
> It has nothing to do with copyright law
> since copyright does NOT apply to ideas
That’s what I’m trying to tell you. Stop arguing against straw-men and listen to what I actually say.
> I have read every word you have said,
Hah! Well, maybe you are really trying to misinterpret everything I say, or maybe I’m just bad at explaining or you’re just bad at understanding.
It’s clear that you have no read, or at least not understood, what I wrote here:
http://www.teleread.com/blog/?p=6327#comment-278999
If you had then you wouldn’t try to tell me what I wrote there, namely that copyright is better in the way that I can write about the same things and similar stories, or even exactly the same words and wordings, as long as I’m not copying. (It can be hard to show that I haven’t seen the original, but at least it works in theory, and sufficiently well in practice.)
> and you are mistaken in your reasoning.
Do you believe that just stating something makes it so?
Show me where I’ve made a mistake and why what I said is wrong.
You are being very uncooperative, and it seems you are not at all interested in the truth, only in pushing your own agenda and/or perception and/or interpretation.
Please answer this question that I’ve asked three times:
Exactly what is confiscated, according to you, if I copy a book that my friend bought?
> etymologically the use of “theft” to
> copyrights and ideas has attestations
> dating back more than 100 years
You are correct, and as long as everyone involved is aware of the difference between copyright infringement and what is normally meant by theft I’m OK with it. What I’m not OK with is the equivocation that so many are making when trying to show that since stealing (=hijacking) a car is wrong then stealing (=copying without permission) the contents of a book is also wrong.
If we would all just write in Lojban then we wouldn’t have this problem, but unfortunately English has good support for this kind of dishonesty.
> The question of “what is theft” hinges
> upon whether the unauthorized distribution
> of a copyrighted work diminishes the
> economic value of the copyrighted work.
Untrue.
If it was true then it would be grand theft whenever an influential critic would write a bad review.
Also the current model. Only a tiny fragment of all those who write for money make a living through that activity (as you yourself pretty much demonstrated when you wrote: “a vast host of not-so-good books and pick out the ones that stand out”. BTW, I predict that you would make your job a lot easier if you selected the books you would like to publish from a vast host of good books.)
Some studies have been done into the effect of file sharing on music sales, and so far these seem to suggest that popular artists suffer and unpopular artists profit. I would not be surprised that a similar effect
could be observed for “pirated” books.
> I actually attempted to base BooksForABuck.com
> on a shareware model when I opened our
> doors–and quickly learned that people simply
> won’t pay.
The model I’d prefer is similar to shareware, except that you promise to pay at least some small amount, X, but you also agree to pay Y1, Y2, Y3 or even Y4 if you like the work. One of the main points is that you can’t pay immediately, only after some time, T. At that time you will get the bill to pay, and it should be made such that it’s very easy to pay Y1, Y2, Y3 or Y4, but if you don’t mind putting in some small effort you can make another bill for an amount as low as X and then pay that.
There are several psychological factors here. One is that it’s somehow easier for many people to buy stuff when you don’t have to pay immediately. Another one is that many of the cheapskates will pay Y1, especially if they’re also lazy, because next to Y2, Y3 and Y4 the Y1 seems quite small and it’s the smallest amount that’s most convenient. Then X should be small enough so that many of the ones who would otherwise “pirate” the stuff will feel no, or very little, incentive to try to find unofficial, illegal copies.
This system also suits people who want to try stuff first and then decide whether to support the authors or not. Now these people download the stuff from p2p networks, but even though they have the best intentions they often forget to actually buy the stuff later on even if they liked it.
And then there are those who really feel that they want to reward good works. (Personally I want to reward good works, and if possible I make donations, but I don’t want to pay even the normal fee of something I think is bad (and if I think it’s degrading I don’t even want to sell it to someone else), but if X is sufficiently low I would rather pay that than getting it illegally.)
I believe the values of these different variables could be tweaked for very good results and reflecting even small variations in the culture, which shifts faster and faster every year.
Rob, I think what frustrates people is that a small but visible number of people do make a living writing/selling books (especially if they’ve attracted the attention of a major publisher). Authors have this sense, popular Author X (you fill in the blanks) makes a lot of money, and I can write better than X; therefore I could make a lot of money. Ahh, if only life were that simple!
The layman’s conception of writing success is whether you’ve published and whether you’ve sold a lot of copies. I think authors see it differently; it has to do with building a brand, developing a fan base, and honing your craft, Publication by itself is not the panacea that young writers view it to be, especially in an age of lulu.
“Exactly what is confiscated, according to you, if I copy a book that my friend bought? ”
If he gives the book to you, or you pay a nominal sum for the book absolutely nothing has been stolen–even if i RECEIVE NOTHING
About advertising model; I think that has been a very successful model for TV, at least until recently. Maybe it doesn’t transfer over to reading books; but having a one page ad at the beginning or end probably wouldn’t detract from the overall reading experience. (I doubt it would raise enough money to make it worthwhile to do though).
Universities and grant-giving organizations have methods for recognizing significant books and authors. Unfortunately, almost none of them allow ebooks/online books to be considered for their minimum publication criteria.
“Exactly what is confiscated, according to you, if I copy a book that my friend bought? ”
If he gives the book to you, or if you buy the book from him nothing is stolen even if the author receives nothing for that purchase. The book is a chattel, property and can be disposed of as you please.
If you make a copy of it and give the original book back to the owner, then you have stolen the right of the author to control the printing of that book.
The LAW cedes the right to copy original work to the author and the publisher. Do do that without permission is theft of someone else’s rights to publish and sell copies.
Theft of revenues, theft of intellectual property, theft, larceny, robbery, piracy . . .
It should be obvious to anyone, the law defines what is property and what is not to take unlawfully is theft. It should be obvious to anyone.
“> and you are mistaken in your reasoning.
Do you believe that just stating something makes it so?
Show me where I’ve made a mistake and why what I said is wrong.
You are being very uncooperative, and it seems you are not at all interested in the truth, only in pushing your own agenda and/or perception and/or interpretation.”
I must ask: Are you familiar with the phrase “The pot calling the kettle black . . .”? You are doing exactly the same thing and calling me uncooperative? Is “uncooperative” defined as not agreeing with you in everything you say?
If so, I am uncooperative, but then so are you.
Regards,
Scott
“If we would all just write in Lojban then we wouldn’t have this problem, but unfortunately English has good support for this kind of dishonesty. ”
If you translate a book of mine into Lojban without my permission you have stolen my property.
Regards,
Scott
> If you make a copy of it and give the
> original book back to the owner, then you
> have stolen the right of the author to
> control the printing of that book.
Are you seriously suggesting that in that case I have the right to control the printing of that book?
No, in reality I have not stolen anything, since the author still has everything he had, even though this one particular unenforcable detail has in fact not been enforced. I have broken the law on this point. I have made something I am not allowed to, but it is not in any way like theft as the word is used regarding theft of physical property. Both are illegal and the words are homographs, but there the similarities end. For this reason you can’t argue that one being morally wrong makes the other one morally wrong, too.
> The LAW cedes the right to copy original
> work to the author and the publisher. Do
> do that without permission is theft of
> someone else’s rights to publish and sell
> copies.
As I wrote above it is not theft. If you have some argument for why it would be then I’m all ears.
> Theft of revenues,
So writing bad reviews is theft, too, since they rob you of revenue? Hardly.
> theft of intellectual property,
What you’re trying to prove of course can’t logically be used as an argument itself.
Besides, what is this mysterious “intellectual property”?
> theft, larceny, robbery, piracy . . .
Ah, more opportunities for equivocation. Just let go of the rhetorics and loaded words and explain what you mean using neutral words if you have such a big problem with equivocation.
> Are you familiar with the phrase “The
> pot calling the kettle black . . .”?
Yes.
> You are doing exactly the same thing
> and calling me uncooperative?
How so? I’m describing what and where your errors are, I’m giving arguments for my position and against yours. You are just disagreeing and saying I’m wrong, and you’re using straw-men and not answering my questions. Big difference.
> Is “uncooperative” defined as not agreeing
> with you in everything you say?
Not at all, as should be clear if you read what I’ve written here. Uncooperative in this case means your unwillingness to answer questions, refute my claims, stop using cheap rhetorics and actually giving arguments for your claims.
Now, let’s get back to the issue, and let’s both try to not use very loaded or ambiguous words.
You have yet to provide a single argument for why copyright infringement should be considered similar to theft of physical property.
I claim that they are different because in the case of “IP theft” the author is not directly deprived of anything, but in the other case the owner is deprived of the property that is stolen. This can be observed.
I claim that copyright infringement can be made with physical object, too, and since it in those cases is quite clear that there is a difference between copying the object and taking the object, it follows that there should also be the same difference between taking an object and copying something intangible. The fact that intangible things can’t be taken does not change the nature of copying such things.
I claim that intangible entities can’t be regarded as naturally property since they’re limitless. Property is based on scarcity* and such a thing does not exist with something that’s limitless. Only by applying artificial restrictions to something limitless can it be forced into a property-like mold, but that would become circular reasoning and thus can’t be objectively true or false.
*There have been some tries to pervert Lockean property ownership to the intangible, but this has been thoroughly refuted.
> > “If we would all just write in Lojban then
> > we wouldn’t have this problem, but
> > unfortunately English has good support
> > for this kind of dishonesty. ”
>
> If you translate a book of mine into Lojban
> without my permission you have stolen
> my property.
Why do you still apparently believe that stating something makes it so? Try to understand that it is utterly pointless to just keep repeating your point of view without providing any arguments.
I said: “Why do you still apparently believe that stating something makes it so? Try to understand that it is utterly pointless to just keep repeating your point of view without providing any arguments. ”
I hae to ask you why are you still apparently believing that stating something makes it so? Don’t you understand that when you keep repeating your point of view without providing any argument that it is [pointless?
/INSERT picture of Bugs Bunny pointing and saying “What a Maroon!”/
Intellectual Property is clearly defined in the English Language–so much so that it is a legal practice specialty.
“intellectual property
–noun Law. property that results from original creative thought, as patents, copyright material, and trademarks.
Random House unabridged dictionary
————————————
intellectual property
n. A product of the intellect that has commercial value, including copyrighted property such as literary or artistic works, and ideational property, such as patents, appellations of origin, business methods, and industrial processes.
American Heritage Dictionary
————————–
noun
intangible property that is the result of creativity (such as patents or trademarks or copyrights)
WordNet at Princeton University
——————————–
intellectual property legal
(IP) The ownership of ideas and control over the tangible or virtual representation of those ideas. Use of another person’s intellectual property may or may not involve royalty payments or permission, but should always include proper credit to the source.
(1997-03-27)
The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, © 1993-2007 Denis Howe
By the way, a review is not an infringement of copyright as it does not use the text of the book in its entirety. Quotes from the text of a book used for review constitutes “fair use”.
Do I have to define “fair use”?
Regards,
Scott
*There have been some tries to pervert Lockean property ownership to the intangible, but this has been thoroughly refuted. ”
Nonsense.
> I said: “Why do you still apparently[...]
That’s a flat out lie. It was clearly I who said (or rather wrote) that. More cooperation, less dishonesty, please.
> I hae to ask you why are you still apparently
> believing that stating something makes it so?
> Don’t you understand that when you keep
> repeating your point of view without providing
> any argument that it is [pointless?
What are you basing those questions' implications on? If you think I've said something that needs arguments to back it up then be more specific, like I have been with you. Or is this just more of your pointless, pseudo-rhetorical arguing?
> > > If you translate a book of mine into Lojban
> > > without my permission you have stolen
> > > my property.
> >
> > Why do you still apparently believe that
> > stating something makes it so?
>
> Intellectual Property is clearly defined in[...]
Those definitions are utterly irrelevant to whether translating a book without permission is or isn’t theft as the word is used regarding theft of physical property. The texts you quoted don’t even contain the word “theft”. Stop making straw-men out of everything I say. How about refuting the claims I made, or perhaps make any arguments yourself instead of just rambling pointlessly? Or if you had some point with the definitions then please explain it.
> > > Theft of revenues,
> >
> > So writing bad reviews is theft, too, since
> > they rob you of revenue? Hardly.
>
> a review is not an infringement of copyright
> as it does not use the text of the book in its
> entirety. Quotes from the text of a book
> used for review constitutes “fair use”.
It should be blindingly obvious that bad reviews causes revenue losses not by infringing on copyright but by making people buy less copies. There’s no reason for you to hijack the topic and try to turn it into something about fair use. Instead you could say if you think these revenue losses are theft or not, and if not then howcome “revenue losses” define what’s theft when it suits your agenda but not when it doesn’t.
None of your quotes about “intellectual property” provide any arguments about why something intangible should be property or even how it could. Sure, you can define any term you want to have any meaning you want, but that doesn’t mean that that meaning is in any way related to the meaning of any homograph.
If I define your goldfish as a “car”, then will you pay a car tax for it “because one must pay car taxes for cars and this goldfish is a car as per the previous definition”? Let’s say some pro-veihicle lobbying organisation makes governments define all pets as “cars”, and it gets inserted into the dictionaries. Does that mean that pets are by their nature cars? Or are they just forced into a “car mold” just so that certain organisations will get more money from pet owners? Will the pets then feed on gasoline instead of pet food because “cars work on gasoline and pets are cars”?
I don’t mind very much to call some intangible things “intellectual property” as long as everyone involved understand that this “property” is not property by nature, but only by having it forced into a “property mold” so that various existing laws, customs and values can be easily be applied to it.
You have still not provided any argument why copyright infringement should be considered similar to theft of physical property, and you have not refuted any of my 3 claims above. You have not even tried. It seems more and more likely that you have no arguments what so ever for your points of view and no counterarguments for my claims, and yet you won’t admint that you’re wrong. It seems you are not at all interested in the truth, only in preaching your own, seemingly unfounded, interpretations. This is highly counterproductive behavior in a debate or even in a discussion.
“It should be blindingly obvious that bad reviews causes revenue losses not by infringing on copyright but by making people buy less copies. There’s no reason for you to hijack the topic and try to turn it into something about fair use. Instead you could say if you think these revenue losses are theft or not, and if not then howcome “revenue losses” define what’s theft when it suits your agenda but not when it doesn’t.”
A review may or may not cause revenue loss but regardless it is not theft or infringement. Distributing copies of a book copyrighted without permission is direct theft of revenue, because you are taking ownership of copyright away from the author and the publisher.
Hey, I encourage you to try the experiment with Steven King or J. K. Rowlands or someone with the clout to take you to court and pound you with lawyers and see how you do proving your point of view in a U. S., Canadian or UK court. Go ahead, make my day. Put some real balls behind it and charge money for your unauthorized copies, just to cover your ‘expenses’.
You would be putting your money where your mouth is and upholding your interpretation of intellectual property limitations.
You would also be thoroughly crushed by the courts.
Regards,
Scott
No, it is not. If you think it is, please provide data from actual research.
According to your previous definition it is theft. If potential loss of revenue is not theft, then copyright infringement is not theft. Hey, how convenient it is then that your hallowed courts of law make a distinction between theft and copyright infringement…
Anyway, I am glad to see that copyright is such a hot topic. I have always been a little hesitant to blog much about it here, since it seemed a little tangential to the digital library. Now I think I will be a subject for my entries at the Teleblog more often. Stay tuned.
Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author’s work under a four-factor balancing test. It is based on free speech rights provided by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The term “fair use” is unique to the United States; a similar principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions.
From Wikipedia~ Please note that quoting here constitutes ‘fair use’ doctrine and is not an infringement of copyright
Personally, I don’t care one way or another whether or not people view piracy of electronic works as theft or not. I can make the argument either way.
But the claim was made that a book publishing business could not survive if legally enforceable monopoly rights to intellectual property expired in a year or two. But regardless of whether you think it is ethical or not, enforceable monopoly rights pretty much vanish the second you publish something these days (just look at how successful trademark and copyright law has been in preventing illegal electronic versions of the Harry Potter books from surfacing online).
Business models for fiction, movies, music etc. which rely on the ability of publishers to enforce said monopoly rights are doomed. We’ve had an ongoing decade-long experiment on the ability of publishers to exclude illegal distribution channels; it has been an utter failure and everyday the options consumers have to circumvent legal distribution channels only increase.
The point being raised was that copyright has been extended beyond reasonable limits for no good reason. Before the Bono law went into effect copyright was 26 years, extendable for a similar time frame. That seems more reasonable.
Regards,
Scott
> Distributing copies of a book copyrighted
> without permission is direct theft of
> revenue,
It most certainly is not “direct theft of revenue”.
I once copied a CD from a friend. Nobody lost any revenue what so ever because of it. The one who sold me the blank CD got some revenue and I got some music, but nobody lost revenue or music, since I would never have bought that CD.
This case in point completely refutes your claim as such, so either refute my rebuttal or don’t use the same claim again.
> because you are taking ownership of
> copyright away from the author and the
> publisher.
I have already shown that this ownership is not taken away from the author, and you have not refuted that. Understand that you can’t use that in an argument until you have provided a rebuttal for my rebuttal of it.
Not only do you seem to think that you saying something makes it so, but you also seem to think that you ignoring something makes it not so. Why would you believe you are the one defining truth? Do you think you’re God?
> I encourage you to try the experiment with
> [...] someone with the clout to take you to
> court and pound you with lawyers and see
> how you do proving your point of view in a
> U. S., Canadian or UK court.
Huh? Why on earth would anyone in court claim that “theft” in “IP theft” is closely related to the homograph in “car theft”? Certainly they would argue that it constitutes breaking the law, and they would be correct, and I fully agree.
I think you are very, very confused.
> Put some real balls behind it and charge
> money for your unauthorized copies,
> just to cover your ‘expenses’. [...]
> You would also be thoroughly crushed
> by the courts.
That has absolutely nothing to do what we’re debating here. Copyright infringement being illegal does not as such imply that it’s similar in nature to theft of physical property. If it did then it would follow that everything illegal (e.g. killing, trespassing, speeding, …) would be similar in nature to theft of physical property. I claim that the only think everything illegal have in common is being illegal.
Stop making straw-man arguments!
You have still not provided any arguments for why copyright infringement should be considered similar to theft of physical property, you have not refuted any of my claims and you have not refuted any of my counter-arguments to your claims.
You’re not debating, or even discussing, you’re just trolling.