I think it is rather odd, the route these IP holders have taken to try and secure their "potential" profits. What is an Intellectual Property anyway? Short story: it is a government sanctioned monopoly over and idea. In terms of macroeconomics (large scale economy), it is a flat out retarded move.

Why? Simple, monopolies maximize profits by minimizing marginal benefits to the population. i.e. You pay more & you get less. Yes, this is nice for the head honchos that scrape by on multimillion dollar bonuses each year while clearing out unessessary costs by say laying off 15,000 workers. The American dream for one man, The American nightmare for many... People fear loosing their jobs now days because the market is starting to canabalize itself. Wallstreet is going back up and unemployment is still through the roof, what gives?

Well, besides profit maximizing greed that americans have begun to chant as though it were an ultimate means to all salvation, one thing that is keeping a lot of jobs from being created? Intellectual Properties. I.P.s prevent many many competitors form entering an occupied marketspace, and it also prevent the jobs those competitors would create. Even in the events where competitors can enter the market, there is more initial capital needed as the barrier to entry to the market, as it is raised by redundant research and lawsuits.

So what needs to happen? Resructuring of the current business model. The shift from I.P. focused profits to goods/service focused profits. How do can you compete if there it no I.P. system in place? Make higher quality products, cut costs that are actually wasteful (such as CEO salaries and bonuses), provide service people actually want enough to pay for. This also means you can free up billions of dollars of lawsuits and redundant research and wasted time.

What about Media? How can we convert media from I.P. based profit to service based profit? Comissioned Art = service. Music Concert = service. Video game Subscriptions = Service. Etc. But, wait are you actually saying I have to continually put in hours of work to make money, rather than rely on this convinent system of secured profits? Where dead men 20 years in their grave are making more profit EACH YEAR, than a guy busting his ass 80 hours a week for his entire life could ever hope to make? Yes, you would have to continually work for profits...just like everyone else...

What about Media? How can we convert media from I.P. based profit to service based profit? Comissioned Art = service. Music Concert = service. Video game Subscriptions = Service. Etc. But, wait are you actually saying I have to continually put in hours of work to make money, rather than rely on this convinent system of secured profits? Where dead men 20 years in their grave are making more profit EACH YEAR, than a guy busting his ass 80 hours a week for his entire life could ever hope to make? Yes, you would have to continually work for profits...just like everyone else...

It's not for you to decide. Who do you think you are???

If an artist, let's say a musician wants to create music and sell it through albums but maybe he doesn't want to or have the means to give live concerts, you just force him to play concerts to make a living because that's a "service".

The music he creates is the service.

Wow you really don't want to answer my question that I've put at the end of my posts 3 times.  It's really not that hard of a question nor does it really ask for controversy.  Just a simply question out of curiosity to compare opinions of the people to what U.S. law says. 

And maybe if you had read that question, or at least taken time to think about it you would have seen how it was relevant.  Wow it must be amazing to know that somebody's post serves to be viewed as a whole rather than in pieces.  The reason I brought up the act, is to show that the government, or the law Kluutru and others have referred to, identifies the copying and/or distributing of copyrighted material whether for monetary gain or not is illegal.  As you so graciously reposted:

"PREVENT THEM FROM BEING COMPENSATED . . . no one is actually deprived of limited resources without recompense"

But that's why I said it because legally, this is what the law says AGAINST.  Wow what a shocker I brought up something relevant.  The law is arguing that whether monetary gain or not from the one that copied or distributed the material, is depriving the said copyright holder of something.  But I guess that is simply irrelevant. 

Well to be fair, there isn't too much difference in copyright infringement and theft.  Really, it only seems to be the resulting penalty that differs too much because they insinuate the same moral concept: that which isn't yours doesn't belong to you without compensation or consent.  Personally, I think the main reason has to do with the idea of theft being associated with a physical loss which is rather outdated for our society. 

It's not only about a physical loss. Physical or not, much of piracy doesn't cause a loss at all (which is one of the things pointed out in the article by the new study).

To the overall economy on average, no.

But it's like distribution of wealth - one guy can afford a medium PC with 10 purchased games, while the other guy pirates the 10 games and can afford a high-end PC with the $500 extra he saved from not buying any of the games.

Actually... from your own link again.

by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.

It needs to be $1,000 or more to count as criminal copyright.  So no, if you somehow break the copyright of something which has no value... you wouldn't be charged with Copyright infringement.

Additionally, you still aren't argueing against anything we've said.  

Note where i said "Potential lost profit or benefit"

Either way.. the point you were trying to argue that nobody was argueing against is wrong under the law you provided.