Saying theft and copyright violation are different morally is not suporting copyright violation. It is to ask as the difficulty of copying wanes, perhaps it is time to rebalance giving up the right to copy in exchange for more innovation. When the right to copy was traded in exchange to protect publishers, it was a lot harder to copy stuff, so relatively less was sacrificed. Now copying things is super easy and crucial to normal work flows.

And yet taking a snap of a museum artifact still is quite distinct from stealing someones pen.

I do not deny the concept of IP (if it is me who you were addressing; see my other comments), but I believe that sloppy nomenclature leads to sloppy thinking.

Fraud vs. theft vs. copyright violation vs. insider trading etc. are all different categories of illegal activity and we shouldn't mix them up by using their names interchangeably.

I admit that as a maths major, I tend to be pedantic about definitions, at least in things as serious as crime.

There is a moral dimension as well. I do not believe that we should cut punishments for theft in half. But I do believe we could well cut copyright protection periods back to the levels where they were in 1960 without causing any major problems or undue hardship to anyone.