Thank you for putting this argument to the top of your comment. Once I see a modification of the statement “one pirated copy == one lost sale”, I stop reading further.

Thank you for saving my time.

Not according to the law, a dictionary, logic or physics. What remains is your personal subjective and confused opinion, which has no relevance to what constitutes theft

> “Every book you download without paying for..”

There’s nothing to pay for when you download a book. The price is free. The price is not up for discussion. You pay when you buy something. When you manufacture something yourself with your own physical property, like filesharers do, the price can obviously never be anything else than free.

> “means that money doesn’t reach the writers.”

Since they haven’t sold anything in your example, they obviously are not entitled to any monetary reward.

> “Each illegally downloaded or shared book costs the writer money, whether it’s measured in hundreds, thousands, or millions.”

The writer has the exact same amount of money in his pocket before someone manufactures a copy, as afterwards. No cost arises from people filesharing.

> “All these arguments about users’ “rights” to download copyrighted material are nonsense, and frankly, discouraging.”

I have not put forward any such arguments.

> “Proscriptions against stealing are the very backbone of a strong society, and citizens who routinely steal from each other erode trust, honor, and integrity.”

Possibly, but that has nothing to do with this discussion, since no item is permanently deprived from its owner, so that he no longer has access to that item, i.e. stolen, when someone chooses to manufacture a copy with their own physical property, that they own.

> “You have no more right to download and make copies of copyrighted material for sharing or sale to others than I have the right to tap into your bank account without you knowing about it, withdraw money, and share it with my friends and strangers on the street.”

Referencing what the current law says is in no way a relevant argument for why something should be in a certain way, it only constitutes circular reasoning.

> “The reason libraries can lend books is because they pay for that privilege.”

The reason libraries can lend out books is because the author or copyright holder has been privileged with no right to forbid such use of his works.

> “Although the per read fee is less than retail, it’s still accounted for.”

There is no per read fee.

> “Writers don’t work for free.”

Unless they are paid in advance, they do. All entrepreneurs do.

> “They’re not “volunteers.””

They are. Of their own free will they choose to do what they do. Nobody forces them.

> “They have families, bills, cars, and all the other needs of normal life.”

All people have, that’s nothing unique for writers, and therefore not a copyright related issue. It’s a social welfare issue.

> “Filesharing books deprives them of their livelihood..”

That’s your personal belief, not a scientific or physical fact.

> “In time, if the filesharing continues, I suppose there won’t be a problem, because there won’t be anything worth reading, anyway, and nobody to produce the books, digital or otherwise.”

That exact argument has been put forward for over 200 years by people advocating pro-copyright monopoly. Again and again that claim has been proven completely incorrect. There’s nothing to support the thesis that it will come true this time either, so you can remain calm. =)

The reason libraries can lend books is because they pay for that privilege. Although the per read fee is less than retail, it’s still accounted for. Haven’t you ever wondered why libraries charge more than the retail price for lost books? It’s because they’re paying a premium for those books having multiple readers. There’s even a huge debate going on now over how many times a digital book may be checked out before needing to re-load the reading licenses.

Writers don’t work for free. They’re not “volunteers.” They have families, bills, cars, and all the other needs of normal life. Filesharing books deprives them of their livelihood, especially in this dicey economic environment, and ensures they’ll have to find other ways to live. In time, if the filesharing continues, I suppose there won’t be a problem, because there won’t be anything worth reading, anyway, and nobody to produce the books, digital or otherwise.