You miss the point hard man.
> By your logic, a (presumedly english) book should not be copywritten simply because it uses the same alphabet and therefore at the core is the same content. However, this is not true. Sure, all data at it's core is just numbers, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the organization of these numbers that create something that isn't just numbers. Whether that be an mp3 file, or a movie, or a pdf file.
But those things ARE just numbers.
The number 1337 is also an unique organization of digits 1, 3 and 7. Does that mean that I can copyright the number 1337 now?
> You also mentioned that ownership of something digital is insane because it isn't physical, except it is. You have a hard drive, on that hard drive is the physical data. On a dvd, is a physical representation of data. On an SD card you have a physical representation of data. The servers you're accessing this site from have a physical representation of the data being transmitted to your screen, which also is a physical representation of the data being interpreted from bits to pixels to light. So theoretically one could use your logic to say that DVDs aren't physical, as they contain a string of ons and offs. Might I also remind you that binary is quite literally a representation of the flow of electricity in your computer, which is also a physical thing. You seem to imply data is somehow imaginary, when it is physical.
Again, this is completely missing the point.
Of course all information must be represented by something physical in the real world. I wasn't implying that data are literally un-physical.
But there is one big difference between data and what we usually call physical items. Data can be easily copied. You can copy a movie with few clicks, you don't have to make another identical movie yourself in order to have a copy. While if you break your phone, you would have to either buy a new one or make one from scratch yourself (pretty hard, isn't it).
Of course 3D printing kinda blurs this distinction between data and physical items, but so far you can't 3D print all of the items you use every day, so let's not go too deep into that.
Maybe in the future the distinction won't exist, but we aren't there yet.
The point is: By copying a movie you aren't taking away anything from anybody, so it should not be considered "theft". Because the term "theft" was referring to the act of taking away something from someone in pre-digital age. It simply doesn't match to the act of copying some data. That is twisting of the original meaning in order to fuel corporate agenda.
Also video related.