The comparison to theft might be an inept rhetorical device, but it seems to influence perceptions of this issue very often.<p>So what is the claim of damages ultimately based on?  In a case of theft, there is an objective loss that can be quantified and compensated; but in copyright infringement cases, it seems like publishers most often talk about unrealized revenues.  Is it appropriate for the courts to award damages based on the plaintiff's predictions of the future?<p>What do you suppose Atari would have sued for if they discovered someone distributing unlicensed copies of the "ET" 2600 game back in the '80s - the same game they eventually buried thousands of unpurchased copies of in a landfill?  Would they have based their damages claim on the same sales projections that made launching the game look like a good idea?