I understand very well. I know what I'm arguing, and I know what you're arguing, and I know that my position is right and why yours is wrong. I read your comments several times to try to figure out any way in which you could be right, but I've found none.
So again, if you have a bunch of burned copies of a movie.....and you get caught....they will PROBABLY charge you with theft my receiving stolen property.
You're talking about IP law, I am not. Because IP law deals directly with the person downloading the content, I spoke to the example of giving that content to someone else.
I'm talking about IP law because that's the only law that's relevant here. The core of your misunderstanding is that you seem to think that an illegally copied DVD is a stolen good, which is not the case. The courts have held time and time again (e.g. Dowling v. United States) that illegally copied works are not stolen property. From that Supreme Court decision:
interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
Notably, Dowling was charged with copyright infringement in addition to charges having to do with moving stolen property; he did not appeal the copyright infringement charges.
If a prosecutor tried to charge someone with "theft by receiving stolen goods" for receiving an illegally copied DVD then they have three things to prove:
That the property was stolen
That you were aware or should have been aware that it was stolen
That you intended to deprive the owner of his or her property
You are correct that it is fairly easy to prove that they should have known that it was an illegal copy, but the consistent judgement of the courts has been that an illegal copy is not stolen property; it is infringing property which is a different thing. The prosecutor would therefore have no hope of proving that the property was stolen (because the DVD itself wasn't), and at any rate you aren't trying to deprive the copyright holder of any property (they still have full control over their copyright; the person who made the copy is just infringing on it).
So, ultimately, your example of a physical DVD is moot. We can look at theft by receiving stolen property as a law about something similar if we want to examine the philosophy behind the law, but when it comes to figuring out who broke the law and how it isn't relevant to your example.
I don't know how to make this distinction any clearer to you. You keep on trying to shoehorn a law into a place where it does not fit. Copyright law punishes the person making the copy, while theft law doesn't apply to IP infringement, regardless of the medium used.
Also, while we're here:
Same as reading miranda rights, they dont have too, because you are "presumed to know" because of its wide spread use in popular media.
Please do not spread this nonsense. The Miranda warning is as necessary now as ever. There are exceptions to when the police must issue the Miranda Warning and they can always choose not to say it if they're willing to not use your statements in court, but if a police officer is conducting a custodial interrogation and doesn't issue the Miranda warning then they're on a fast track to having the whole interrogation and anything that results from it thrown out of court. Wherever you're getting your legal advice, find somewhere else. Because you really seem to be misled.