> If I take a look at it, I didn't steal $1000 from you.

> If I photograph it, I still didn't steal $1000 from you.

This is where the inductive logic breaks down, because you are unlikely to make a perfect substitute (in other words, copy) of the product by simply looking at it, but by photographing it, now you can, which means you have denied compensation to the author of the work by being able to produce a perfect substitute.

> If I'm not willing to pay a creator for their content, it must not have any value to me.

If it doesn't have any value to you, why are you making a copy of it in the first place? :)

A photograph is not a perfect substitute for the painting made by the artist..... It's not on the same medium, and we know it wasn't made by the artist. Or are you implying I can sell a photo of the monalisa for about as much as the original since it's the same?

That used to happen with pitated software, get event then it was usually a major price drop not the same price.

That’s a narrative about yourself that you tell yourself, and it might be true about you, but it’s not true about everybody. If pirating didn’t exist then some % of pirates WOULD buy more stuff. Unfortunately we don’t have great ways of differentiating people who can’t or won’t from those who would. But many people who would pay also love free stuff, so you can’t conclude takers of free stuff would not pay. And in aggregate this opting for free reduces creator compensation; hence the charges of theft.

And the same timeline might not have people buy stuff they cannot afford and have no demo versions of, resulting in actually a worse outcome.