Why? I was told that using the product without paying for it was a righteous form of protest against outrageous terms.

How would that not apply to shoplifting because the price is too high or the return policy too short or whatever?

Shoplifting removes an item from the store's posession and is theft. Copying an ebook doesn't remove any copies the publisher has, which is why it's not theft.

Are you ok with me taking nude pictures of your family and than maybe also make them available for everyone else? It wouldn't be a theft, because you would still have originals.

The point isn't "it's ok", the point is "it's different", so drawing a line between the two is pointless. The nuances of copyright and IP in general don't apply to a bottle of Sprite on the shelf of a 7Eleven.

It's fine if you think what they are doing is wrong. The government shares your opinion.

Additionally, this argument here is even worse, because the laws you'd be violating in this instance have nothing to do with IP or theft, but rather privacy.

It's not theft, but I doubt people would be ok with that for other reasons. Depending on the laws there might be criminal charges for doing so, or a civil suit.

But you wouldn't be charged with theft.

> Why? I was told that using the product without paying for it was a righteous form of protest against outrageous terms.

That has nothing to do with it being a good or bad analogy.

> How would that not apply to shoplifting because the price is too high or the return policy too short or whatever?

What is "that" in this statement? I'm not saying the word "theft" isn't valid, I'm saying the circumstances are different enough that equating the two is a poor basis to reason from.