I don't think that's true at all. We can acknowledge qualitative differences and aims and indeed this "special pleading" is the foundation of all law - we select based on our own conceptions of what is right which laws to make; to say that it is special pleading is to say that laws against those actions which cause harm is special pleading - after all, what's so special about harm? Nevertheless, it is possible to imagine a world in which one restriction (or liberalization) is made but another is not. While this requires a competent legislature and judiciary, there is no reason to think it is impossible; the difficulty in making an analytic distinction is only a small speed bump.

Well, sure, thats all well and good in theory. How do you deal with existing laws though? Its hypocritical to tell someone to not "steal" GPL code, when you're downloading the latest Avengers movie yourself. I'm all for changing the law, but I don't agree with the approach that copyright law can only be fixed via civil disobedience.

You are creating a false dichotomy by using the word stealing in the first place.

If you accidentally take a picture of my shitty origami art project you are not stealing

If you walk into a factory and take the mold for a military sonar device you are stealing.

At what point does changing the first story into the second story does it become stealing?

Either you can pinpoint a minimal set of changes in which it becomes stealing OR 'stealing' vs 'not stealing' is insufficient to accurately describe a situation

Yes, stealing applies primarily to physical property or physical items of value. And the word hacker now has a second meaning with a negative connotation. Words outgrow their original meaning as the language evolves. I'm not advocating for the word 'steal' to be a legal definition of anything. I'm simply using it on an internet forum in a casual context.

The author already doesn't control all aspects of distribution. It's for example okay to use copyrighted works for satire in many legislations. So lawmakers already agree that there are legitimate uses of copyrighted works that are out of control of the copyright holder. If we wante to we could extend such uses to include filesharing.

Yes, and that would be good. Alls im saying is, follow the law, or change it, but don't advocate breaking it ;)

(I admit I too pirated music and sw during my college days, but I don't anymore..)

It isn't just the author personally controlling though. It is about using tax payer's money to do so.

As a society, we have generally agreed that the author has certain rights of control, and as a society (i.e. using taxpayers' money) we will enforce those rights on behalf of the author.

How is that different from society agreeing that it'll use taxpayers' money - through the police force, courts, etc - to uphold my right to keep control of my wallet, my car and my house, in the face of someone who might want to take them from me? My possession of these things is personal, yet society supports/enforces it when challenged.