Tell me more about "my kind."
Your kind is Collectivist — people valuing the (glorious) Collective above the (cantankerous and selfish) Individual.
Oh, you may be genuinely aghast about GULAG and Holocaust, but you're not in the slightest against government ownership — or strict control —of the means of production, are you?
The former would make you a Communist, the latter — a Fascist (like most of the Western establishment nowadays) — and I don't really care, which side of this murderous coin you personally prefer.
Making that pesky document known as American Constitution into a "living and breathing" one, which (emphasis added): "evolves, changes over time, and adapts to new circumstances, without being formally amended " is just a tool towards the end of spreading the Collectivism wider, and your kind — be it a Slashdot-poster or a UChicago law-professor — are happy to use it.
I simply pointed out your self-inconsistency — you don't want the same "life and breath" for the Ten Commandments; because that would make your theft of content harder to justify.
That said, I'm impressed, that such ethical justifications are still something you look for — even if in the wrong places — maybe, there is still hope.
Finally, back to the topic — your "Insightful" argument is that of semantics: your (implied) defense of the practice of theft of content is simply "oh, it is not theft". Well, it is wrong for the same reasons as the theft of a tangible object would be. Whatever you want to call it, it is simply unethical — and you're wrong.