I mean, bank robbery directly affects $X. It is more difficult to determine how much money is "stolen" when someone violates copyright law, but ultimately if it is more than $X why shouldn't the sentencing be on par with or more than that of bank robbery?
Because a bank robbery is a robbery, not mere theft. In a robbery, you make a credible threat to use force against another human being. That's hopefully still worse than stealing $x.
You would have other charges added in addition to the actual taking of the money which related to how threatening you were at the time of the robbery. I'm saying the actually robbery charges being on par with distributing copyright content and ultimately taking money out of the pockets of the content creators are, at the end of the day, both the same if the same amount of money is taken.
A bank robbery still has about as much in common with copyright violation as with pirating actual ships. I am not threatening anyone when committing copyright violations
A much more convincing argument could be made that theft and copyright violations are the same. Buy theft has quite low punishments (at least in California).
..if that argument were not destroyed by the Supreme Court many years ago. Infringement is not theft, no matter how much big businesses want to equivocate the two in people's minds.
>It is more difficult to determine how much money is "stolen" when someone violates copyright law
You may violently disagree with this, but if you're struggling to figure out at least a lower bound for how much damage might have been done, the answer is probably "almost none".
I mean if it helps you sleep at night after you pirate a bunch of stuff sure, but ultimately there are people out there who want a digital thing and have the money to buy it. Some percentage of those people pirate the thing and money is lost for the content creator.
