Original sentence: Copyright infringement is often equated with theft, for instance in the title of the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997, but differs in certain respects.Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v.The key distinction generally drawn, as indicated above, is that while copyright infringement may (or may not) cause economic loss to the copyright holder, as theft does, it does not appropriate a physical object, nor deprive the copyright holder of the use of the copyright.United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not (for the purpose of the case) constitute stolen property, and writing:
Edited sentence: Advocates have often taken small quotes from Dowling v.Copyright infringement is often equated with theft, for instance in the title of the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997, but is considered a different legal category of theft as identity theft is.Laws and the courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v.The key distinction generally drawn is it does not appropriate a physical object, nor deprive the copyright holder of the use of the copyright, just as identity theft does not and is subject to different laws.United States (1985) that although the act of stealing could be considered theft, just like identity theft, bootleg phonorecords did not (for the purpose of the case) constitute stolen property just as your identity illegally in a thiefs hands is not stolen property, and writing:.United States out of context, but like the Bible, both sides can find quotes to support their view that copyright is or is not theft, althought everyone agrees there are different laws for material obtained by fraud, force or physical copying