> they're really attempting to use sophistry to shift the argument away from what was otherwise a straightforward case of them knowingly breaking the law and ri

> they're really attempting to use sophistry to shift the argument away from what was otherwise a straightforward case of them knowingly breaking the law and ripping someone off The other side of that coin is that terminology like "intellectual property" and the equating of copyright to theft are actually tools embraced and popularized by those who seek to extend copyright indefinitely, so they can grow their rent-seeking profits. They're successfully planting the belief in people's minds that ideas should be treated like physical property, with rightful permanent owners. That's a dangerous belief imo, but it has now become widespread. Also, it's my understanding that copyright law exists more to spur society-wide creativity than to protect any individual's right to profit from an idea. Yes, the mechanism by which copyright law operates is of course to grant creators limited monopolies. But I don't think we should get the law's mechanism mixed up with its moral purpose or even practical purpose. Calling it "theft" is an attempt to do just that, and is entirely unnecessary.