[JoshTriplett]

Why would I pay for anything when I can make an exact copy without taking away the original?

If you want to argue about copyright infringement, do, but don't equate it to theft. That's an old and tired argument that isn't useful for setting policy.

[Tadpole9181]

Because you're an adult who understands that software, films, music, art, books, etc all have (significant) financial costs to produce and the people who make them have a right to the fruit of their labor as long as those fruits are required for them to continue eating. And because it's obvious you are not making an exact copy, because the original is legally licensed and the copy is not.

I'm sure you'd feel this way about someone stealing your identity, right? After all, your SSN can be copied exactly without taking away the original. Just ignore all externalities to the specific act of copying.

Plagiarism is another thing that's super cool under this strictly "immediate and physical" worldview of morality. There's no reason anyone would ever want to stop it, since it isn't tangibly destructive and we don't think of secondary effects when setting policy.

I know it's because you personally get something out of it, but I cannot even fathom trying to say this trite with a straight face. At least be a grown up and just say you want free stuff and don't care if it hurts upstream, like the rest of us. I really can't stand this new-age moral grandstanding piracy where you pretend you aren't a petty thief.

[someguyiguess]

“Trite” is an adjective, not a noun.

[JoshTriplett]

I think you've missed the point of my comment entirely. The point was, don't equate copyright infringement to theft; they're separate activities. If you want to argue that copyright infringement is unethical, argue that, but don't make a trite analogy to "shoplifting" and drop the mic.

As for the rest: I have consistently argued that copyright should not exist, and I will continue to do so. I think it's a net loss.