No. The copy argument is bunk. It's not about depriving someone of product, it's about depriving someone payment. In the case of software there is unlimited supply but there isn't an unlimited amount of consumers. Each consumer who circumvents the payment process deprives the creator of the payment they ask of their work. So now you'll argue that they wouldn't have paid anyway but that's also a terrible argument. The original post shows that some people would pay but won't because it's too "inconvenient" to. Furthermore, even if they wouldn't have paid anyway they should have, it's still wrong that they have and use the software and they still deprived the creator of payment. You wouldn't say a shoplifter isn't hurting anyone because they wouldn't have paid anyway, would you? To all these argument I would say they're just clever mental gymnastics made up by people who want to justify piracy.
You are the one doing mental gymnastics. I never said it was right to make a copy, I said it was not stealing. I am sorry that you want so badly for them to be the same, but they are in fact legally different for very good reason.
I would not say the shoplifter is hurting anyone since shoplifting is distinctly different from copyright infringement. He would be depriving someone of their property. Copying something does not deprive the IP owner of their copy.
I'm not trying to justify any immoral act, I trying to prevent justification of absurd laws that infringe on people's basic freedoms (SOPA et al) by stopping people from using hyperbolic statements.
