>I do own it. By law. And they cannot legally copy and distribute it. Read up on copyright law.

This discussion is on whether deprivation of income is sufficient to qualify as an ethical violation. You claimed that people are not entitled to get something for free "if I want them to pay me for it". (Really?) I asserted a general right to copy information. This right does not need to come from law, though law ought to recognize it.

I understand the law, what is the justification of the law?

>So are you saying that nobody is buying software? Software does cost "that much" and people are buying it.

No, you said:

>Name any big consumer application that could have been developed that way with developers getting paid about the same as they would by selling it (i.e. about the same as the value they provide).

Virtually nothing is sold at the price of the value it provides. It it were, the buyer would get no gains from trade.

In truth, commercial software is frequently sold way below the price of the value it provides. This is why people buy it. (though the provided value will vary from buyer to buyer.)

Some will make their whole income with visual studio or photo shop, but only pay a tiny fraction of that.

I realize you see an injustice in rampant copying, but I don't think you're thinking through your arguments, or not wording them well. Because these are coming out very obviously flawed.