said by PaulHikeS2:
I compared you actually manufacturing the Ferrari in your garage to "manufacturing" music meaning actually performing and recording the music. It would be almost the same, but not identical, just like your Ferrari example. A more accurate analogy, but altogether different than a bit by bit idenical copy.
Then you are breaking the analogy to better suit your argument since you know that's not what happens with copyright infringement. If you want a better analogy, you have to go past the physical limitation of not being able to 'create' a perfectly identical copy of something (which copying a file does).
To better the analogy, consider the Star Trek transporter. If you turn off the dematerialize feature and simply scan the physical object and create an identical copy using only pure energy then you will have a better mechanism for describing copyright infringement.
So now the questions become: If I scan my friend's Ferrari and 'create' another one, have I stolen anything? What if I create 20 Ferraris and give them to my friends? What if I run off a few dozen and open up a lot to sell them? If you want to insist that I am stealing something, please tell me exactly what it is I am stealing.
One has to delve deep into science fiction to come up with a scenario that properly compares copyright infringement to shoplifting... that's why the comparison is completely absurd. When you actually DO a proper comparison, almost no one would have a problem with making a copy of a friend's Ferrari for his/her personal use; there is NOTHING WRONG with it. If/when such a Santa Clause machine is invented and everyone has one, what should we do... tightly regulate its use to make sure business doesn't change? Or would it be time to rethink the way products are created & distributed.
You seem to keep going back to a legal definition of Copyright Infringement; I don't know if you read the whole thread or not but it was about comparing copyright infringement to shoplifting.