Because if he steals that car from you; your stock is reduced by one physical car. If he walks into you showroom and records the design of your car, them goes home and prints it out using his 3-d printer, then you will still have all your cars.

Simples. Stealing you don't have the car he stole; copyright infringment of a car and you keep all your stock.

But why does that matter? To use your logic, "what right do [I] have to withhold [my] cars?"

I think it's a disparity in the way people think. I tend to believe that intellectual property cannot be "stolen," for much the same reason orathaic is posting. It's an idea, a chain of ones and zeros. Making a copy of such a thing in no way deprives the previous owner of that thing.

KC, and the US government, don't see it that way. Intellectual property has value, and to copy such a thing without compensating the owner for his property is unlawful and wrong. Even though you aren't shorting the owner any physical item, you are effectively depriving him of the value of what he owns, and his right to profit from it.

So is it "stealing?" That's semantics, if you ask me. The concept of theft has been around a very long time, and is usually associated in our minds with taking of a physical object. The idea of digital theft is much newer. If you believe that people have a right to retain intellectual property, then you must view digital piracy as theft. If you think that concepts, ideas, and information are and should be free, then I think you're off the hook, according to your own morality.

But a movie, game, or song isn't "intellectual" only. It isn't simply an idea. It is MY (for argument's sake) music or movie or game. As in, I own it, unless I sell it. Not the "idea." This isn't about if I make a game about Indiana Jones, and you make another. This is about you literally copying my work, and making money off it.

There's a difference between enabling torrenting for personal use, which is what TPB was for, and copying for resale. The latter is far more clearly a problem than the former.

But why? Judging by some responses I have seen, people seem to think that digital products don't belong to their makers at all. Why couldn't I then sell that product?

@ mendax: "If there was a universal basic income in place, would this change you stance on this issue?"

Almost certainly, yes.

We can legally go to Walmart, buy National Lampoons' Christmas Vacation, charge our neighbors $5 to rent it for the day, but we can't share it electronically. I could charge $5 a seat in my living room for my neighborhood to watch it (or even for free) but, can't lend it electronically.
The problem is what is the difference between lending and distributing? How do the authorities define the difference?

@ejb,

That's a valid criticism of existing legislation. Additionally, enforcement is out of proportion with the actual severity of popular infractions. Seriously, a bunch of Swedish kids were thrown in prison for making a web site that didn't have anything bad on it, it had links to stuff that's bad.

Thank goodness Our Media Overlords are looking out for our best interests.

"Seriously, a bunch of Swedish kids were thrown in prison for making a web site that didn't have anything bad on it, it had links to stuff that's bad."

They made a website that was specifically designed to facilitate such links.

@jamie - I still think you're probably on the wrong side of this, but at least I understand your position now.

"Even though you aren't shorting the owner any physical item, you are effectively depriving him of the value of what he owns, and his right to profit from it."

That depends, if spreading via sharing and word of mouth actually increases the distribution it may be increasing the value (and number of sales) of what he owns - we end up with a situation where enforcing your copyright harms everyone concerned.

@ejb: i'm pretty sure you're not allowed show your version of national lampoon in public - which might be interpreted to include to your neighbours.

Though you can rent it out; a cinema has to license the showing of the films they have.

But what if instead of copying a DVD, i build an optical device which reflects lots of light off it and then splits the light, the information is now available to be sent down optic fibres into multiple locations - just using light; similar to having many people reading the same page of a book at once...

At what point have i broken the law? I mean, my optic fibres might reasonably be expected to share the dvd with 10,000 people at once (more the 10,000 photons bouncing off each bit of information on the DVD, so physically possible) Where is the 'right' of it? When do i cross this ficticious line to immoral sharing?

And why is it ok to share a book i've read with my friends; thus depriving the author of potential sales?

I would agree with orathaic's interpretation of the law in most jurisdictions, with regard to ejb's scenario.

I am quite sure I would be violating copyright and possibly other licensing laws by showing films in my house and charging people money to come and watch them. If I did for free, for my friends, probably fine - but once you charge an entry fee, you make if a commercial activity.

Oddly, it doesn't seem to be a question of commercial. It is a question of public performance versus private.

If you open your home up to the public it becomes a public space.

It might be possible to argue that if you just invite 538 of your closest (facebook) friends that it is still private.... and you can ask them for money. Though this may differ greatly depending on jurisdiction.

Invite them all to a free movie, charge them for parking space. Problem solved.

@ KingCyrus: You'd need a very big driveway to make much money that way ;-)