Yup! And that's why comparing digital piracy with car theft is also equally silly.
Note, I don't have a hard stance on this. Counterfeiting drugs, etc. is wrong for obvious reasons. Coming up with a similar argument for entertainment media is a bit less tenable.
When the MPAA and RIAA cede the moral high ground by acting like idiots (suing 12-year olds, pushing for high criminal charges, SOPA/PIPA, etc.), it makes it more difficult to make a moral argument for the industry.
The everything free argument is crap. But given that I pay for songs on iTunes but pirate TV shows because Derp Studios refuses to put it anywhere online, the user case is valid.
The article talks about generic drugs, which are off-patent drugs, and completely okay.
Problem with counter-feit drugs is the usual quality checks aren't present. This can lead to ineffective or even harmful drugs that patients take while thinking they are getting the real thing.
I was comparing the laws of theft. It's just the law that a copyright owner can ask whatever for it. When you obtain a copy without flowing this rule it is called theft.
So I think the discussion should be about the copyright law. Not about "I think this service sucks so I will get an illegal copy".
Don't get me wrong. I think it's absurd that you can get a penalty of $10.000 for downloading a MP3. I think the copyright rules should change.
But I think it's silly to fight a law by disobeying it. It will give the MPAA good ground to say "see they are pirates".
Laws aren't absolute; they are, when properly written, the codification of social mores. Presently, copyright law conflates copying with theft, you are correct in this. But I think the meta-debate surrounding the issue is whether this assumption is correct; it is thus circular to cite the law as one's defence.
"I think it's silly to fight a law by disobeying it"
I agree with the sentiment that this should not be a first response. But if the intent is to deprive the studios of revenue while sticking a finger to them with the intention of encouraging them to back down, then it is a valid strategy (with precedence). Given the radicalisation of the MPAA, however, I don't see that as being likely.
So I agree with you in practice, but diverge in principle.
Not yet, but the technology is rapidly improving. With the right equipment (3d scanner, 3d printer), you can copy basic items at home today. It is only a matter of time.
With the right technology, why wouldn't you copy a car? A car only has value because of its inherit scarcity. If you could copy a car, it wouldn't be worth anything (aside from the cost of materials required to perform the copy).
See how silly this sounds?
The problem with digital media is that it's very easy to copy. You can't just copy a car.
There are tons of website offering free music. So just support those artists instead of the ones charging too much for an inferior service.