Eric Goldman notes a news report on a study that found the British didn't equate copyright infringement with "theft" (Is Copyright Infringement "Theft"?).

If this attitude holds true in the US as well, it would represent a colossal failure of the movie/music/software PR machine. For years, the copyright owner groups have tried to shape public perception of copyright infringement by using value-loaded words to describe infringement: "pirate," "theft" and "just like shoplifting" are among the standard lingo of the lobbying/PR efforts. Yet, to the extent Americans can distinguish copyright infringement and "theft"/"shoplifting," then a major axis of the copyright owners' efforts will have failed.

Despite the extended criminal boundaries, a review of the post-passage developments suggests that the Act has been unexpectedly ineffective. To fully understand why, this Article focuses on a group of infringers known as warez traders. While Congress did not specifically reference warez trading in the Act, warez traders were its prime target. Yet, Congress did not fully understand this sociological group or their motivations, resulting in a law poorly tailored to conforming their behavior. But in drafting a broad law to cover warez trading, the Act overstates the harm experienced by copyright owners. This expansive standard for harm covers activities necessary to function in a digital society, unnecessarily turning too many average Americans into criminals. Corrective legislation is required to more precisely distinguish between truly culpable behavior and socially beneficial conduct.