That would be true, if one could compare intellectual to tangible property in that way. If you have a car that can be made into an unlimited number of copies, could you still make the argument that you were missing something if one was taken? That's kind of the crux of what I'm getting at here. I apologize if I've come off soundly badly. I don't think people should do things to harm others, or their ability to produce artwork, but when a behaviour falls outside of causing harm, I think it's good to question what should be done.