>>211684345A digital copy is the same thing as a physical copy. Just because the former is ostensibly more accurate of a copy than the latter does not negate the fact that it's still a copy. Accuracy does not matter. A copy is a copy.
I'm not talking about printing a picture of a famous painting. I'm talking about making an exact replica right down to the brush strokes and everything.
I can flesh this further. If I decide to make KFC chicken using a leaked recipe, I have stolen nothing. Even if I happened to figure out how to copy the recipe by my own means, I've stolen nothing. KFC can still sell their product.
Sure, you can argue that you're paying for the convenience at that point instead of replicating the product. But same can be said for piracy. I could pay for the convenience of a digital download instantly at my preferred quality, or I could use P2P methods which entails having to filter for my preferred quality and hoping there are enough seeders which means I could suffer from a very slow download speed that I would have otherwise paid for a faster download.
And on the topic of accuracy, it all falls apart once you are trying to translate physcial media to digital media. Ripping a Bluray disc to a digital file comes with some loss, therefore not a perfect replica. Plus, by downloading a digital copy, I sacrifice having a physical copy on bluray.
I could go on, this is a nuanced topic. Suffice to say, I don't think it's as absolutist as you claim it is.