> "Before computers existed it was impossible to make exact copies of something at zero cost. Therefore, stealing was morally wrong because if you take one of s

> "Before computers existed it was impossible to make exact copies of something at zero cost. Therefore, stealing was morally wrong because if you take one of something, the person you took it from will have one less of that something." I know this wasn't your main point, but I think it's worth rethinking the basis of your (or possibly, just this essay's) view on copyright. A "copyright" is so named because it is precisely the right to prevent other people from making copies. When it originated (in the 1700s), its goal was to prevent the copying of books, even though copying--then and now--did not deprive the owner of their own access to the work. What has changed is not the invention of a new fundamental concept (making a thing like another thing), but the ease with which this can be done by the unscrupulous. If you really liked a poem in 1720, wanted to be able to read it, but didn't want to buy a copy, you could get it by copying it word-for-word from someone else's version. The effect on the author was no different from copying a friend's MP3 file. The only difference is it feels like "a smaller act," so it can't be "a big deal."