The initial conclusion your parent presents is the exact ruling in Dowling v. United States. >Interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, co

The initial conclusion your parent presents is the exact ruling in Dowling v. United States. >Interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985... ..... I do think grouping all IP into a bucket muddies the conversation. Trademark infringement, where one assumes the name of another product, possibly selling a counterfeit is closer to theft. It involves defrauding the consumer, and displaces a legitimate sale with a copy. Copying a product, and selling it or giving it away free is one type of problem, but assuming someone elses trademark to mislead is a different magnitude of problem.