You're not getting it.
Stealing a DvD in a video store costs the store money.
Sneaking into a movie theater costs the movie theater money.
Having one .avi file that you copy doesn't cost anyone money.
The first two examples involve actual profit loss while the second is only potential profit loss if you can even call it that. There was no production or maintenance cost to cover.
Alright, let me go into some more detail. I'm going to use unlikely and simple situations and numbers to avoid unnecessary complexities.
Let's say a movie theater company plans to show a movie. It costs $100 to show it, and 50 people buy tickets for $10 each. The theater has then made $400 in profits. However, a 51st person snuck into the theater without paying. If this person had paid, the theater simply would have had $10 more in profits, but no money or physical objects were lost.
Let's say a movie is being released on DVD. A store buys some of these DVDs from a distributor for $5 each and sells 100 copies for $10 each. They've then made $500 in profits. However, one of the customers that bought a DVD ripped the movie from the DVD and put it online for others to watch for free. One person watches this movie online instead of being the 101st person to buy it at the store. If this person had bought a DVD at the store, the store simply would have made $5 more in profits, but no money or physical objects were lost.
Please explain to me how these are different in a practical sense.
Though if you want to steal from/get back to Disney, Necromancer, sneaking into a movie theater is not going to be very effective.
Right, I'm aware of that, though the conversation has shifted away from that.
Exactly! You're robbing them of the service they're trying to sell you out of vindictive jealousy! Glad we agree.
But you are admitting that you're robbing them now, no? Or is this still "that big 'ol building with all the equipment and seating is totally public property?"
Let's get something straight: this is not about me. There is no jealousy involved. And I wouldn't use the word "robbing" because of its negative connotation. I don't view this situation as negative. Rich corporate executives have more than enough sh*t already. Someone who has much less money taking from them (or in this case, not contributing to their profits), especially on this small of a scale, is completely justified.