You are technically correct (according to Futurama, the best kind of correct).
But you're also repeating the digital-communist newspeak also. "Piracy is not stealing" is not identical to "Piracy is not wrong". I realize that's not the position you're trying to push, but bear in mind that "Piracy is not stealing" is way too often used to justify piracy itself, as if mere infringement makes it morally acceptable, but stealing is not.
Associating piracy with stealing is problematic, technically incorrect, but is not entirely without merit.
Similarly, dissociating piracy from stealing is problematic but not entirely without merit.
The "I'm just copying your couch" argument that the internet likes to make is about as sensical as the "You wouldn't steal from a store would you?" that the MPAA/RIAA like to make. Both are attempting to use weasel words to justify their own position.
The copyright-based industries have tried to present infringement as a fundamental moral wrong. It is not. Quite the contrary, communication is good, as people unconciously know and feel.
You're making his point. You could also the same thing about anything.
That is not accurate. Many laws -- those we probably most respect -- are grounded on actual basic factual effects. They have a justification prior to conventional or legal constructs.
For example, if you take a material object from me, you deprive me -- directly and physically. That is the core justification of normal property, and there is no such justification for IP.
What about identity theft? You aren't actually "stealing" anything. The original identity is still there.
Counterfeiting (currency and things like ipods) is another example. It's illegal and you aren't actually depriving anybody of anything.
Music "piracy" is copyright infringement in the eyes of the law. End of discussion.
So I equate it to "theft of services". Let's say I get a massage, and then I just walk out the door and don't pay for it. I have clearly stolen that person's valuable time. Which isn't a perfect analogy becuase they have finite time vs being able to make infinite copies, but either way someone worked hard with the intention of getting paid for it, and there are people out there depriving them of the money they would have gotten (and please don't say "but I wouldn't have bought it anyway! which is also crap, becuase most people are downloading music they would have bought, its just the nature of blockbusters vs the long tail). So I don't know what the word is, but it is definitely closer to theft of services than anything else I can think of.
Not just in monetary cost.
So; ethical theft?
Authors often get advances against royalties. Let's say BigPublishingCo pays you $10,000 to write a book. Let's say your book doesn't do well. What are the odds you'll get to write a second book? As an author, you're looking at your future and trying to figure out how you can increase sales.
One way to do that is to make the pirate copies disappear.
That's what publishers try to do, so they can stay in business.
Let me know if you see any issues with this arrangement.
Typically, by the time a band has "recouped" its advance and has only began to start earning for the artists and has theoretically broken even according to the bizarre accounting of the studios in actuality it has resulted in a return on investment to the studios of several hundred percent.
Book publishing is similar but generally not quite so evil.
The basis for IP law is to encourage the production of creative works. The moral imperative is to allow science and art to improve people's lives. IP law should be a practical set of rules to create a free market for these works.
Does the current system do this? Not very well. Neither does infringement in most cases.
The idiots are still laughing all the way to the bank.
> So; ethical theft?
No, copyright infringement.