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.
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".