That is sheer propagandist nonsense. You do recognise the basic unassailable physical difference between copying something and removing it, don't you? The differences of economics follow from the differences in physical fact.
Consider this quote from Landes and Posner -- one of the primary orthodox authorities on the matter:
"Copyright protection -- the right of the copyright's owner to prevent others from making copies -- trades off the costs of limiting access to a work against the benefits of providing incentives to create the work in the first place. Striking the correct balance between access and incentives is the central problem in copyright law."
Is that how physical goods, and theft, are understood? No. To say there is a tradeoff is to say both are good: that is, copying is good.
Consider this quote from Landes and Posner -- one of the primary orthodox authorities on the matter:
"Copyright protection -- the right of the copyright's owner to prevent others from making copies -- trades off the costs of limiting access to a work against the benefits of providing incentives to create the work in the first place. Striking the correct balance between access and incentives is the central problem in copyright law."
Is that how physical goods, and theft, are understood? No. To say there is a tradeoff is to say both are good: that is, copying is good.
Read it: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/IPCoop/89land1.html -- and learn something.