When @ntumlin says "it's just a bunch of ones and zeroes" he completely disregards the intangible but very valuable order existing within them. Smash a glass to smithereens, but keep every one, and you still have "a bunch of atoms". Their arrangement, however, is very different - and far less valuable. Focusing only on the atoms to evade responsibility for the value lost in smashing the glass suggests you don't recognize the value of the unbroken glass, which is nonsense. Of course you recognize the value, which is why framing the situation to suggest otherwise is dishonest. And expecting others to go along with an obvious charade is abusive.
Beyond your dishonesty, @ntumlin, there's also real harm in your actions (assuming they reflect your thinking). The thing you have failed to acknowledge is that that, when you make a copy, you create an obligation to pay the holder of the copyright a specific amount of money. In other words, when you make a copy a portion of your money stopped being yours and became the author's. He now has a claim (albeit a small one) on your wealth. In the event of a failure to pay, the thing stolen is not the file itself, it's the money. THAT'S what you're stealing. Not the music, the money.
"Ok" you say "but I deleted the file". That's irrelevant. You're legal obligation isn't connected to having the file, it's connected to making it. Obviously, there are fair use laws that specify a range of situations in which making a copy doesn't trigger a corresponding obligation to pay. But if you're operating outside those parameters, then you're on the hook.
There's no scarcity of files. But there's a real scarcity of people with the time, talent, and resources to make really worthwhile content. And it's the arrangements - not the bits - is what constitutes our culture. At present, there's no reasonable way to enforce people's obligations to share the cost of what they otherwise "share" freely. That's where you find the deprivation - in the money that is no longer changing hands. And, if you think that a person who goes bankrupt because they can no longer charge for their work isn't harmed, you need a new definition of "harm".
One more thing: saying - as you do - that "it's just a bunch of ones and zeroes" to a person who may have sweated blood and tears for years to produce the arrangement that actually attracted your attention is just awful. It's an attitude that reflects something deeply rotten about you as a human being. Just understand this: culture thrives in spite of people like you, not because of them. In addition to the money you owe directly to artists, you own a debt of gratitude to those who did get them paid when you refused to do the same.