That's because theft generically reduces inventory while leaving the seller with the need to recoup the marginal cost of the item stolen. This is one of the many reasons why downloading something without the copyright holder's OK is not the same thing as theft. (This is not to say it isn't a crime or that it's morally OK — just that if it is a crime, it's one other than theft.)
>This is one of the many reasons why downloading something without the copyright holder's OK is not the same thing as theft.
This is pure nonsense. It's true that no inventory is lost when a product is downloaded and in some cases no sale as well. But you'll never convince me (and it's impossible to prove) that every single person who ever downloaded any software wouldn't have purchased it had they not had the option of stealing it.
The issue is that software has huge up front costs. If people were to follow your "morals" there would be no reasonable way to recoup those up front costs, since it would just be ok to take what you want.
I do tend to think that the fact that the creator continues to get full price long after they've past production costs and made a healthy profit could use some scrutiny (i.e. is there a better way to do this), but software is hardly the only industry where this is the case.
