The laws can vary from area to area, but a number of them do refer to infringement as a form of theft. Any law that refers to the negative impact of the criminal act to the economy is almost certainly speaking of theft. It might not be literally spelled out as theft, but in most cases it is. Heck, in the US there's a law referred to as the Net Act, which stands for No Electronic Theft Act, that literally names it electronic theft even if there is no monetary gain.
EDIT: Which upon reading up on this I'm assuming you mean Dowling vs US from 1985. The Net Act I mentioned was passed in 1997. Plus Dowling is strange, it seems to suggest that copyright infringement isn't theft because the alleged thief didn't steal the actual copyright and didn't deprive the owner of the use of the copyright. The decision didn't seem to have anything to do with the physical materials that were copies, most of which weren't copyrighted to begin with.
The "taking" is not the copying, that's a truly sad defense. The taking is depriving the original owner of the resources due them for the time and resources expended during the creation itself. If they created it then they have the right to dictate terms in how you consume it. If you don't agree to the terms then the proper response is to not consume it, not to copy it outright and make some silly claim that they lost nothing because you made a digital copy so that they still have the original.
Heck, in the US there's a law referred to as the Net Act, which stands for No Electronic Theft Act
This means nothing, and is certainly not a defense to your (and the copyright lobby's) misuse of the word "theft". There is absolutely no requirement that a bill amending the USC be titled anything that has to do with what it actually regulates or contains. The Patriot act has little to do with patriotism...
The taking is depriving the original owner of the resources due them for the time and resources expended during the creation itself.
A good counterpoint to this:
* Inviting a friend or any random person to watch a movie with me: Perfectly legal.
* Inviting a friend etc. to watch my entire collection of movies with me: also perfectly legal.
* Ripping my own DVDs so I don't have to deal with physical media: Arguably legal and fair use.
* Giving that ripped copy to said friend: Copyright violation, and many would argue morally wrong.
* Downloading a copy of a movie I already purchased from a torrent site for whatever reason: Also a copyright violation, but few would argue that this is morally wrong somehow.
Replace "movie" for "song" or "game" and the same argument holds.
Where your logic breaks down is that the net effect to the copyright holder in every one of those scenarios is the same. Someone else enjoyed some product without extra compensation being required.
That's a stretch. The effect to the copyright holder is the same only if the frequency of the acts is the same. Giving a copy to someone is very easy, disconnects the time and place of playing completely. Those are easily enough to disincentivize the friend from buying the movie.
Which is nobody's business but the two friends, right? Sure, if all those other situations are a right and not a privilege. Socially, people feel they must be able to share their movies in their own home, and the movie industry begrudgingly permits this without charging. But when you start giving it away, the argument that its your business is clearly strained to the breaking point.
So are we talking about laws or morals here? My stance has always been that the legal argument carries zero weight for the average person, along the same lines as the slight speeding that anyone who owns a car has done. Yeah it's illegal, but who cares? You're not going to be in trouble unless you make a business out of it.
Morally? Then, admittedly, it's murkier. There's a point to be made there though that the "damage" the industry always crows about is less of a real thing (supposed damages higher than the country's GDP, suing networked printers, that kind of thing.. these are not the actions of rational actors with facts on their side) and more of an excuse to be made for exerting greater control over culture. That's getting a bit meta for this thread, though.
Are we at the moral event horizon? I can only speak for myself: We blew past it sometime around the Sony Rootkit scandal. Respect is earned, not given freely - I certainly don't lose any sleep over that blockbuster movie sitting on my NAS or that EA game I download to ensure it's not garbage before shelling out $80.
For you and anyone else? Can't speak there. I just wish everyone would stop conflating legal and moral.
I would say that you are mistaking moral and legal issues. It's your moral right to commit illegal acts because of the Sony rootkit fiasco or other similar nefarious acts? Really? I guess we can all go rob banks now because of the financial industry misbehavior over the last few years? We can steal cars to determine if we like them before dropping twenty or thirty grand?
Is that response in the negative or the positive? I always get confused when people toss out the fallacy card to answer simple questions. It's not like I claimed no true Scotsman would commit copyright infringement, they are simple questions awaiting a yes or no response.
You are correct about naming of laws, but it doesn't necessarily make my point invalid.
I would believe that inviting a friend over to watch a movie is legal is because the copyright holders allow it under the license you agreed to as part of the transaction. They would most likely be within their current rights to restrict such a thing but I seriously doubt a court would agree with it.
In most cases ripping a DVD is most likely illegal in the United States as it is illegal in most cases to bypass any security measure to prevent copying. This has been covered under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, but I am not familiar with any recent adjustments they have made to that law.
Downloading a copy of a movie under a torrent is illegal not because of the download, but the uploads of you seeding the file. I believe this has been established in the courts.
With all your examples, regardless of the material involved, can be perceived as theft under copyright protections if the copyright holder wishes to pursue it as such. Just because they allow some behaviors that may be seen as a detriment to them in some way, most likely it is not, doesn't mean that suddenly all behaviors are moral and legal.
The defenses I see of the idea that copyright infringement is ok and not really a crime is dependent over complicating the matter. It also requires stretching the definitions of commonly used words which has clear meanings throughout various cultures. I admittedly take a simplistic view of the matter and many may not agree, which I'm fine with.
I create a song. You wish to listen to the song. I want a dollar from you for this transaction to happen. You give me a dollar and you get a copy of the song. I have gained a dollar and you have gained the right to listen to the song. The opposite of that is you do not pay the dollar and copy the song illegally. I have been deprived of the dollar I am due and you have gained the ability to listen to the song. It could also be argued you have also gained the dollar that you were supposed to give to me in the transaction. That is the simple matter of why I consider it theft.
If the copyright holder was giving out the material without financial gain but with specific restrictions and one violated the restrictions, then I would say that is copyright violation that is not theft. But if the copyright holder expects monetary compensation as part of the agreement to let you consume the material and does not get it? That is theft.
EDIT: Which upon reading up on this I'm assuming you mean Dowling vs US from 1985. The Net Act I mentioned was passed in 1997. Plus Dowling is strange, it seems to suggest that copyright infringement isn't theft because the alleged thief didn't steal the actual copyright and didn't deprive the owner of the use of the copyright. The decision didn't seem to have anything to do with the physical materials that were copies, most of which weren't copyrighted to begin with.
The "taking" is not the copying, that's a truly sad defense. The taking is depriving the original owner of the resources due them for the time and resources expended during the creation itself. If they created it then they have the right to dictate terms in how you consume it. If you don't agree to the terms then the proper response is to not consume it, not to copy it outright and make some silly claim that they lost nothing because you made a digital copy so that they still have the original.