>e-piracy is not a victimless crime, as long as you have at least one data point of a person who would have paid for the game/movie/software but didn't do so be

>e-piracy is not a victimless crime, as long as you have at least one data point of a person who would have paid for the game/movie/software but didn't do so because he/she had easy access to a torrent. By that definition a criminal who steals a a physical product from a store is guilty of both stealing the product and depriving the store of his hypothetical future patronage. What about producing better substitute product. Am I guilty because I create a product that stops people from buying your product? If it's not the act of piracy that makes it immoral, but the result, then anything else that has the same result should be equally immoral.