If someone infringes on your copyright, you can still continue selling licences as well as fully transfer ownership of the intellectual property. That's why it's not stealing. Note: I'm not condoning copyright infringement, just pointing out that it's not equivalent to stealing.
I don't see the debate you're referring to. When the music industry chooses to redefine a word, pointing out that that's what they're doing is sufficient. I took the extra step of actually repeating the definitions here, but that shouldn't be necessary.
1. There must be some executive who agrees that there is a difference between copying and theft, and;
2. There must be some executive who agrees that since there is a fundamental difference between an act that gives to one without depriving another and an act which gives to one while depriving another, there must therefore be a fundamental difference between copying and theft, and;
3. There must be some executive who understands the difference between copying and theft.
The first one makes it plain that there is debate as to whether X and Y are different. The second puts your terms on display for debate. The third assumes them.
1. Stated (as fact) that there is a fundamental difference between copyright infringement and physcal theft.
2. Expressed dismay at the apparent lack of understanding of the above fact by the music / movie industries.
Expressing dismay because someone else seems unaware of something you hold as a fact is not a logical fallacy in and of itself. It may be possible to show the fact is incorrect and the dismay therefore unnecessary, but that doesn't make it a fallacy.
The statement is couched as being about point number two, but if we say either "yes, there are music executives who understand" or "no, you're wrong, no music executives understand," either way we are forced to agree with the first point.
For the record, I agree with both points, but I also acknowledge that the matter is subject to debate.
I quote: This fallacy is often confused with begging the question, which offers a premise no more plausible than, and often just a restatement of, the conclusion.
It does become a loaded question if you ask a music industry exec: "Are you aware of the fundamental difference between copyright infringement and stealing?" But, as the wikipedia article says, that's not the same as begging the question. In any case, it's not a loaded question, since it's not a question to begin with.
The original poster did not ask us to answer the question about the record / film industry, while accepting his other statement. He was saying "I believe that there is a fundamental difference between X and Y, and am dismayed by the lack of understanding of this difference in the record / film industry". I doubt he had formal logic in mind.
EDIT: But you do make some very points, and I'm willing to concede that I may be completely wrong about what the original guy was trying to say, or how it should be interpreted. I really should spend less time on HN :)
Thanks, I learned something from your points and research.
There is a need to state the obvious when you are talking about record industry executives who are stating that they disagree with what you or I consider to be obvious.
If it was that obvious, there wouldn't be any debate, would there?
Well, I guess you automatically "win" whatever discussion you are having when you open with those four words. I presume the logical next step is for us to switch into Monty Python skit mode:
"There is no debate."
"Yes there is."
"No there isn't."
"Yes there is."
"No there isn't."
"Well the RIAA is debating you, so yes there is."
"No they aren't. They can't simply make a rhetorical point conflating two different things and call that a debate. They have to make something that I agree is a valid debating point."
"No they don't."
"Yes they do..."