No, he didn't. He used an analogy that involved theft to illustrate a moral point about the potential versus actual results of actions and the conclusions we c

No, he didn't. He used an analogy that involved theft to illustrate a moral point about the potential versus actual results of actions and the conclusions we can draw from them. Apparently this was too subtle - and I'll admit I had to stop and think for a moment, so perhaps the analogy was confusing/unclear - but I'm fairly sure that the intent was the moral point, not comparing loss-of-revenue-via-non-shown-page-views directly to loss-of-revenue-due-to-theft-of-physical-product.