[jfk13]

> nobody lost the use or ownership of any physical article

Presumably the author and/or publisher lost the use of the income they could reasonably have expected to receive corresponding to a certain number of copies of the work going into circulation.

Anyhow, physical articles are not the only things that can be stolen.

[zucker42]

If you have a successful bed making business, and I decide to start making beds too, you'll certainly make less profit, but I haven't stolen from you. Deprivation of income is not theft, practically any action you take deprives someone of income.

Most justifications for property (both personal property and real estate) invoke the fact that pieces of property are rivalrous (one person's use interferes with another's). Calling unlicensed copying "stealing" ignores the crucial difference between physical goods and digital files.

[EvanAnderson]

Each act of copyright infringement does not equate to a lost sale.

We have a term for copyright infringement. We have a term for unlawfully taking things that are subject to scarcity. They are two different things. The lack of scarcity matters.