What is has no relevance to what ought to be.

> What ought to be has no relevance to what is

Then why even argue?

But that's besides the point. If a law is unenforceable, it doesn't really matter. You could create a law mandating everyone wear green socks on Tuesdays, and see how many people comply. Or (looking to what is as you wish) how many people enjoy a puff of a joint despite it being illegal in most places?

Or remember the US banning the export of cryptography algorithms? How well did that go?

The state has guns but even they have limitations if I decide to copy a few words off a page in private among my friends. Same if I send them a few bytes using HTTP/SMTP/whatever.

Conflation of enforceability and legality.

Oh, it's definitely illegal in most every jurisdiction. I was never in the dark about that :P

> Your entire argument revolves around why content ought to be free to copy. What ought to be has no relevance to what is

What it is, in the US, anyway, is copyright violation. That is not legally theft, but a different violation entirely.

Arguing that piracy isn't theft is correct. It's not arguing that piracy isn't wrong, or that it is harmless.

100+ countries can also show you that copyright infringement is not the same as theft in the eyes of the law.