This is a well spread around graphic: and makes IMO a pointless point. It is often used to try and legitimise illegal file sharing - which I dont think is a fair argument at all. Yes distribution of copyrighted material is not theft. It doesnt make it not illegal.

I feel justified in calling it theft though: the legal definition of theft is old and out of date for starters (same with copyright law: these sharers cannot have double standards on that surely).

What we call it is immaterial: recognising the problem is potentially more important. And I believe if calling it theft makes people consider it a crime much more than copyright infringement then that is, surely, a good thing.

And at the end of the day it morally feels like theft. :D

I approve of the effort to highlight the differences between the activities. But as an attempt to legitimise piracy and illegal file sharing I think it is wrong and highly misleading (the suggestion being the last of the 3 examples is not illegal).

so a piece of software should be sold for $100,000 because under that logic it will only ever sell one copy...

or

you're suggesting that people who make apps, movies, and music don't deserve to get paid for their work