@ Doug Janis: wherever you went to law school, you need to get your money back!
(a) what PDL said. Article I, Section 8. Read it yourself.
(b) The Supreme Court does not merely say that “Copyright Infringement is not Theft.” It said, “Copyright Infringement IS MORE COMPLICATED THAN THEFT–oh, and by the way, it’s still ILLEGAL and WRONG.”
In DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (1985), Henry Blackmun writing the majority decision says,
“Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple “goods, wares, [or] merchandise,” interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.”
Get those reading glasses on, man.
Started out doing photography at the age of 6 using an uncle's old 1940 kodak brownie box camera. At 15 years of age, I decided to buy my very own 1975 Praktica SLR camera. I now shoot with a Nikon D850. I do unpaid TFP and commercial paid work.