> Is "piracy" and "theft" too rough for ya'?  I mean, isn't that
> ultimately what "copyright infringement" really comes down to?

No it is not what it comes down to.  The words are not too strong, they
are just wrong.

Why not to use piracy:
Publishers often refer to prohibited copying as ``piracy.'' In this way,
they imply that illegal copying is ethically equivalent to attacking ships
on the high seas, kidnaping and murdering the people on them.
If you don't believe that illegal copying is just like kidnaping and
murder, you might prefer not to use the word ``piracy'' to describe it.
Neutral terms such as ``prohibited copying'' or ``unauthorized copying''
are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a
positive term such as ``sharing information with your neighbor.''


Why not to use theft:
Copyright apologists often use words like ``stolen'' and ``theft'' to
describe copyright infringement. At the same time, they ask us to treat
the legal system as an authority on ethics: if copying is forbidden, it
must be wrong.
So it is pertinent to mention that the legal system--at least in the
US--rejects the idea that copyright infringement is ``theft.'' Copyright
apologists are making an appeal to authority...and misrepresenting what
the authority says.

The idea that laws decide what is right or wrong is mistaken in general.
Laws are, at their best, an attempt to achieve justice; to say that laws
define justice or ethical conduct is turning things upside down.


Again, I have said, and will continue to say.  Violating copyright is
against the law.  People doing so should be prosecuted.  However, they are
not pirates nor theives.

-Derek