"Stealing" a digital product implies that every stolen copy is a net loss for the distributor. It's definitely not.

Of course, it's not like if you clone a file on your hard drive 10 times, the manufacturer of what you're cloning loses tenfold. But every person who has used the product without paying for it is such a loss. I don't know what the "every stolen copy" argument has to do with anything. Not everyone who downloaded would have bought. But that can't simply be calculated with some neat "every stolen copy" slogan. It is an argument to justify the thieves.

> but every person who has used the product without paying for it is such a loss.

i bought lots of products only after pirating them. would i not have done that i would not have bought many things at all. I also fondly remember simply not having the funds to buy software and pirating them was the only way to move forward. in both cases my "stolen" copy should not account for a loss of sale and the former even supported making a sale at all....

Your post is a bit unclear to me, I'm not sure which side of the argument you're defending, but

> every person who has used the product without paying for it is such a loss.

No, because like you said, that implies that you'd have bought the product if pirating it wasn't possible. If I want to pirate a game but it's not available, I won't buy it either.

> It is an argument to justify the thieves.

I'm not justifying "theft" - or piracy in this case -, I'm just saying that you can't equate the two. Piracy and theft are two very different things, with different motives, and different consequences of the distributor.

Stealing implies someone being deprived of something. I don't condone pirating but the argument isn't invalidated merely because it 'justifies' the act itself.

So how would you call it?

The "piracy is theft" motto is just false, but you can keep both words in their own context you know. So, I call that "piracy".

unauthorized copying / distribution.

A copy of the source code has been stolen.

... or been acquired without permission?

for me stealing implies change of possession. this does not apply here. what might have been taken is the possibility to monetize it the way they imagined or that they had been hurt by the PR afterwards and similar things. but nothing has been stolen everything is still in place were it was before and nothing is missing except for some of the confidence in their infrastructure security.

"Hello, I'm calling to report that the 16-digit sequence, expiration date, and 3-digit security code of my credit card have been replicated and are now known to persons whom I did not give permission to utilize."

"Sir, are you calling because your credit card was stolen?"

"It was not stolen!! I still retain possession."

So I'm reasonably sure that if you dont cancel the card after losing possession, you can be held liable for transactions that occur with the card at that point. Especially if your PIN is also compromised.

You're not liable for transactions that occur fraudulently when you still retain possession of the card.

So yeah, it's an important distinction.

... "hello, my credit card data has been acquired and used without permission. I still possess the card but want you to freeze the account and a new card mailed to me afterwards."

do you see how this is just more accurate?

It's not. And with more and more drm nowadays piracy is actually something of a must if you are to enjoy the product you paid for.

It's you paid for it, it's not a piracy.