Marcus, who over at Dear Author has said–and I quote, because it’s just mind boggling–all of the following:

Starting on comment 32:

If you absolutely feel that you have to buy some DRM-restricted ebooks then you should at least have the decency to crack it and upload it to some file sharing site, just to hasten the end of such anti-progress, anti-mankind shenanigans that DRM is.

Anti-mankind? Hyperbole much? But he continues (comment 68)

Think, please. If I make a copy of a chair I’m not stealing the chair, I’m copying it. See the difference? The same applies for ebooks. However, it’s not the ebook (or even the contents of it) that is claimed to be stolen, but the monopoly of copying it. However, after you’ve “stolen” the copyright you still don’t have the copyright, so the whole idea of “stealing copyright” doesn’t even make sense any which way you look at it. So, no matter how you try to look at it copyright infringement simply can’t be compared to “stealing” as the word commonly is used.

To which I asked,

Please. Copyright infringement is not stealing?Intellectual property is not property, then?

Talk about not having the same definition of decency, stealing, and a host other things.

and got this little gem from him (comment 72)

Exactly. No matter how many times I “steal” some copyright I’ll never have it, so it obviously can’t be taken and thus not stolen.

Not inherently, no. It’s “property” only because it has been redefined as such for some (but not all) legal purposes, but it’s not “property” in the same way as is understood by the common man. (E.g., you don’t pay any property tax on “intellectual property”.)

Well, then. Let’s chuck some laws out the window, and have authors work at something else for a living, since they can’t make money off their writing.

Or we could say that there are people who’ll claim anything, no matter how irrational, to justify their lack of ethics.

Either way, what a fucktard.