Is it the "only thing that matters" though? For one, the Supreme Court is known to reverse it's own rulings, from time to time. Second, the phrasing in this case ruling is far from "unambiguous". For example, it says:
"interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud."
Does not easily? How is this unambiguous? "Does NOT" would indeed be unambiguous, "does not easily" leaves the door open. And later on, they say:
"Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.".
Why the "run-of-the-mill" qualifier? Are they implying it could still be theft, just not the "run-of-the-mill" kind? IANAL, but calling "Dowling V. United States" unambiguous is stretching it. And I doubt it's the "only thing that matters". (Especially since outside the US it does not matter at all).
"interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud."
Does not easily? How is this unambiguous? "Does NOT" would indeed be unambiguous, "does not easily" leaves the door open. And later on, they say:
"Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.".
Why the "run-of-the-mill" qualifier? Are they implying it could still be theft, just not the "run-of-the-mill" kind? IANAL, but calling "Dowling V. United States" unambiguous is stretching it. And I doubt it's the "only thing that matters". (Especially since outside the US it does not matter at all).