I'm not taking anything from anyone. And frankly how dare you accuse me of plagarism, are ad-homs all you have left at this point?
How come copying songs and movies isn't bad, but copying for a paper somehow is? Neither one hurts the author?
Is quoting without citing a removal of profits from that person? Why can't I just take the quotes then?
Their works are not their property like their TV, and so are covered under a different part of the legal code.
EDIT: I'll push this a step further and cite a Supreme Court ruling about this very issue:
The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
Dowling vs. United States (1985)
Now unless you're going to start saying that the Supreme Court's ruling somehow doesn't apply because it doesn't suit your view, that should definitively settle the issue of whether or not copying is theft.
Now loud and clear so everyone can hear it:
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT != THEFT
So I went and looked up the Section 2314 and the law to take a gander at what you said.
Firstly, the guy didn't fight the copyright infringement law so he knew they didn't belong to him. So good luck with that.
Secondly, 2314 deals specifically with the transportation of, not merely the possession of.
Also, in the majority opinion a Justice says this: "Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud." and "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud."
Nowhere in this does it say it is ok to hold or use these works. Show me a law where someone took them to court for copyright infringement and it was thrown out because they made a copy.
"Dowling appealed all convictions besides those of copyright infringement"
Why didn't he appeal the copyright if he clearly wasn't doing anything wrong?