The morality is quite different to physical goods. Infringement is a malum prohibitum not a malum in se.
Copying is not immoral in itself. Quite the opposite: it is something we would want to encourage.
It can only really be immoral in so far as the law is moral. And the law is only moral in that it serves an economic purpose -- that is, to be clear, it serves us overall. The law is not there to 'protect' or benefit copyright 'owners', they are the means not the end.
So is it serving us overall to restrict access to goods where there is no need to? to charge more than can be afforded, yet the cost of supply is negligible?
If the intrinsic act is moral, and the law obstructing it is in some case seemingly immoral, it is easy to support doing the act anyway.
Not sure I agree. The two mala can overlap; in the realm of unauthorized copying, I think that they sometimes, but not always, do. It's complicated.
What's clear, though, and where I'm pretty sure we'd agree, is that rhetoric conflating unauthorized copying with traditional forms of stealing doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. It isn't at all like taking somebody's food or jumping out of a taxi without paying.
> The two mala can overlap; in the realm of unauthorized copying, I think that they sometimes, but not always, do
How?
You are taking a more cautious view than me, which is maybe more prudent and respectable. But I would be interested to hear how copying can be intrinsically harmful . . . the basic problem is that it is by definition physically separate, so for there to be any effect communicated at all requires some other system. Is there a good counter-argument or -example?
Copying is not immoral in itself. Quite the opposite: it is something we would want to encourage.
It can only really be immoral in so far as the law is moral. And the law is only moral in that it serves an economic purpose -- that is, to be clear, it serves us overall. The law is not there to 'protect' or benefit copyright 'owners', they are the means not the end.
So is it serving us overall to restrict access to goods where there is no need to? to charge more than can be afforded, yet the cost of supply is negligible?
If the intrinsic act is moral, and the law obstructing it is in some case seemingly immoral, it is easy to support doing the act anyway.