[Osiris]

The problem is this common analogy is completely off base. When you steal from a store, that store had purchased a physical product from a wholesaler. This is know as the "cost of goods sold." The store maintains an inventory of product for which they have already paid a significant sum of money in order to place it on the shelves.

When you steal from the store you remove an item from their inventory which they cannot sell. The cost of that item that was already paid now has to be covered by profits made up from selling other items in the inventory, thus increasing (albeit very little) the price of the rest of the inventory.

In other words, the physical good is moved from one place to another, depriving the original owner of its value.

File sharing, on the other hand, has no marginal cost to each "copy" of a file. If I write a song or software and put it on the internet, it costs me nothing if 1 or one million people share the file (assuming it's not my bandwidth to pay for). Also, if one user downloads my file it does not disappear or transfer from me to them. I do not have to manufacture another item. File sharing is copying. Stealing is transfer of ownership.

So, you cannot directly compare file sharing, which has no marginal cost, to physical items that have a marginal cost of production. What owners of copyrighted works are trying to recover are their fixed costs in producing the work.