Whether somebody buys a copy or makes it himself also isnt up to debate here. The question is whether copying itself against the wish of the author should be illegal or not. Copying can be legal and you'd still have people buying copies to support the author. I can copy but I still buy. The legality of copying doesnt exclude buying.
What about someone decompiling someone else's app and putting it up for sale on the Android market. Is that wrong?
What about hacking into someone's server and copying their source code and design documents and using it to build a rival service?
What about selling software which contains GPL code and not acknowledging it or providing the source code?
Apples to oranges. These are all examples of commercial infringment, which is quite different from the standard Hollywood claim that "unauthorized viewing" of a movie is exactly equivalent to stealing.
So you're saying the difference is that the perpetrator intends to profit from copying? Surely by copying a movie for personal use you are still profiting, if not by much.
You're playing games with words now. If you're going to define "profit" so broadly that it covers benefit of any kind, then I fear we can't have a profitable discussion.
No, I do not typically profit from piracy. When I purchase a kids' movie on DVD, Hollywood says that I have only purchased a "licence" to use the movie. When I then rip the movie to avi's (no complex decoding required to view) and copy the files to two old laptops so that my kids can watch the movie in the car, Hollywood says that I am a pirate -- that I am stealing their movie.
Not only does this process cost me time (and thus money) and aggravation, I also get the benefit of being labelled a criminal. At least the kids are happy.
If we are talking about wealth in the broadest sense, as discussed by PG in the link below then I certainly class copying a DVD that you haven't purchased as profiting, yes.
I don't think anyone realistically considers format shifting as copyright infringement, other than opportunistic executives. I'm not aware of anyone being taken to court for format shifting.
Oh, and I'm not sure if your 'profitable discussion' pun was intentional or not, but I enjoyed it anyway.
In order to rip a DVD, you have to break the CSS encryption, which is illegal under the DMCA. Hollywood (the industry) has fought hard against allowing exceptions to the DMCA for fair use of any kind, and they terrorized the hackers who reverse-engineered CSS in the first place.
Hollywood has also fought to force other countries to outlaw fair use. Here's an example:
Yes, I'm aware of this. But I don't think lumping fair use in with people downloading torrents makes a lot of sense. Hollywood want complete control over all access and distribution of their content, while the Pirate Party want copyright abolished. As usual the reasonable position will lie somewhere between these extremes.
What about someone decompiling someone else's app and putting it up for sale on the Android market. Is that wrong?
What about hacking into someone's server and copying their source code and design documents and using it to build a rival service?
What about selling software which contains GPL code and not acknowledging it or providing the source code?