Three things everyone should know about the infamous “Piracy”:

1. Piracy is not the same as theft. It would be, if I could steal your car and we both had one car each, after the theft.
2. Piracy doesn’t cause “loss of potential revenue”. It would, if I was going to buy your product. But, if that ever constituted logic, you’d owe me billions for not hiring me in any line of work, because I “would have been paid if you had hired me”. See now how stupid that argument is?
3. The argument that “stealing from the rich is still stealing and should be punished” would be valid in that debate only if regular Joes received $500.000 compensation when someone stole their car, same as a Piracy perpetrator is fined for… downloading songs.

Unfortunately, if anyone of you has ever had anything stolen from them, you know that:

1. The stolen item is lost for you.
2. The thief wouldn’t have bought it off you, if they hadn’t stolen it.
3. You don’t get insane amounts of compensation, no matter how expensive the lost item was, unless it was insured against theft (and then you’d be practically get compensated by… yourself, as you were the one paying for that insurance).

Think about that.

PS: The company that “owns the copyrights” doesn’t own any copyright for that file, only for its content. It’s illogical to call it “theft”. Why? Here’s why: is it also “theft” if I start singing a song that’s copyrighted? The content is copyrighted, so… yes, according to the same logic.

PPS: In Commerce, there is a fundamental concept called “Good Faith”. All transactions are done in good faith. That means, if you buy a carton of eggs, you are not expected to scrutinize the vendor’s log books to make sure they weren’t stolen. If you watch a show on TV, you are not legally liable if the TV channel is broadcasting it illegally. So, why would you be legally liable for watching a show or hearing a song on a website? Why skip past the principle of Good Faith there?