Video games are a good example of something that works: the marginal cost, and actual copy-proof value of many games are updates and content. See World of Warcraft. Pay to play.
At least you are paying for something that actually costs money (again: a download is essentially free to the seller).
The issue is why do I get to sell someone else's work? And even if we did allow it, this would quickly lead to content producers not being able to continue to produce.
Imagine for a second if Steam could just take any video games and sell them keeping 100% of the profit. How would that impact production of video games?
>See World of Warcraft. Pay to play.
So create a market where only always online games are ever made? That doesn't seem a step backwards?
"A thousand candles can be lighted from the flame of one candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened."
The question now is if modern day software piracy and similar intellectual property copying is theft. If it isn't then perhaps "piracy" is a bad term for it?
Other synonyms for theft (larceny, burglary, robbery, etc) are too tied to the physical world to work for their purposes. The goal was to frame the conversation away from more accurate words like copying or infringement since those have more ambiguous moral connotations. Looking at the thesaurus entry for theft, I struggle to find a better alternative to piracy if the goal is to shape the way people think about the issue in your favor.
I'd prefer we call them huggers, not pirates, and that they are hugging content rather than pirating content.
You'll notice that if the word has positive connotations, then if you commission a study on the effects of hugging on the music industry, you'd probably be expecting to finding positive net benefits to the activity.
I do not consider piracy theft, but I do consider there to be economic issues that must be handled. If the creators aren't compensated, there are limits that wind up occurring. For music, because of factors such as the ability to be compensated through concerts and through fame (fame can't directly pay your rent, but I think it still counts as compensation because of the impact of having high fame), it is possible for people to still make money. But in other medias this may not be possible. Look at movies, if we allowed infinite copying how would we get the budget to create the expensive movies currently created? Imagine if a theater only had to make a copy and could continue to show the movie and make profits without giving any back to the creator.
If you look at indie video games, you see a truce of sorts. Most indie games have little protection, but many people still buy them even though they could copy them. Some do this because they want to support people who aren't developing game with always online DRM or similar techniques. But is this model sustainable? What happens if people begin feeling entitled to such an extent that the producers aren't able to sustain their livelihoods?
And I'm not sure my personal experiences are relevant or not, but I'm someone who use to pirate computer games back when I was a broken college student but who started buying all my games once I had a steady income.