So, while one might argue that space-shifting should be acceptable, it is still the case that very few people REALLY make “backup” copies, so that argument should probably not be trotted out first in just about every pro-copying piece.

that’s great, but being able to space/time/format shift copies for personal use is important to consumers when they are buying media. people who buy your stuff will be more likely to keep buying when they can shift it to suit their needs.

this doesn’t apply at all to piracy since space/time/format shifting a pirated copy is effortless.

this punishes paying customers and has zero effect on piracy.

And since when do people “lend” digital copies? First of all, how is it “lending” when you make a copy and then send that copy to someone else, while you retain the original? What have you “lent”? And how many people follow up on that a few days later to remind the friend that he/she should delete the copy if they do not intend to make good on it by purchasing it legitimately within a reasonable time?

the point in the article is that it’s acceptable to lend physical copies but not digital ones. people who buy your stuff will be more likely to keep buying if they can lend copies. people who borrow copies are more likely to buy your stuff as well.

this too affects the consumer, but not the pirate. lending pirated copies is also effortless.

again, this hurts the paying customer but not the pirate.

One might argue whether a copyright holder should be able to withhold some of those rights in a transaction for the sale of a copy of the movie on a DVD or Blu-ray, but, for the time being, they do have that right, and, so, use of that content outside of the terms of that sale IS “stealing”.

that’s an oversimplification. IP either IS like physical property and can be stolen, or it isn’t like physical property and therefore cannot be stolen. IP maxmalists want to have a bunch of rights and controls which are not possible with physical property, yet they want to be able to enforce those rights with penalties commensurate with the theft of physical property. that doesn’t really work since you cannot have it both ways.

if IP is like physical property, then YES, unauthorized distribution is stealing, but then content creators have to extend physical property rights to the consumer, like the doctrine of first sale. consumers would then be afforded physical property rights for digital goods that they don’t have now, like being able to sell, rent, or lease their copies.

if IP is not like physical property, then you can license it instead of selling it, and take action when that license is violated, but you can’t call violating that license “stealing”. it is a violation of an agreement and should be treated in a vastly different manner than the theft of physical property.

Granted, some examples of stealing are way worse than others, and it is also certainly possible that content owners are cutting their own throats by annoying their customers with such restrictive policies. However, thsoe content owners have the right to cut their own throats, and it is not up to us to save them from themselves.

that may be true, but the ways that content owners want to help themselves is by changing laws and law enforcement in ways that will erode consumer rights, fair use, the public domain, and possibly even civil liberties such as free speech. these changes will continue to be in place long after the businesses they were enacted to protect have ceased to exist, due largely to the self-inflicted throat cutting that you described.

that is the issue: the market changed and there was a sudden leveling of the playing field that shifted power to the consumer at the expense of the intellectual property rights holder. the response from the rights holder has been to lobby for changes to legislation that will control the market artificially, rather than adapting to the change by finding new ways to compete.