That's always been a misleading banner. Notice that it never uses the phrase theft, and that it only talks about criminal copyright infringement, but doesn't actually tie that back to the copying of a single movie. It's basically FUD.
For a serious take on copyright versus theft, I would defer to the Supreme Court. I post this because it's both authoritative and well-written.
> Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple “goods, wares, [or] merchandise,” 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.
That's always been a misleading banner. Notice that it never uses the phrase theft, and that it only talks about criminal copyright infringement, but doesn't actually tie that back to the copying of a single movie. It's basically FUD.
For a serious take on copyright versus theft, I would defer to the Supreme Court. I post this because it's both authoritative and well-written.
> Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple “goods, wares, [or] merchandise,” 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.