[slowpoke]

>I see that a programmer or artist is slightly different because the work the programmer or artist did can be duplicated.

That's not only "slightly different", that's the crucial difference. So no, they aren't "effectively the same", they are two completely unrelated cases. Would people please stop trying to use this dishonest and flat out false argument to support entirely wrong chains of argumentation?

Besides which, the work an artist/programmer has done is unrelated to the distribution of the result. If one expects to be paid for the actual work done, they have to seek other models. One that often comes up here is Kickstarter, where a form of contract is made - money for work done. Perfectly fine. Musicians have and always had concerts and merchandise as their source of income. Comissioned works are also possible, and are a very valid source of income. Additionally, there's patronage - which is, for example, basically the way Linus Torvalds makes his money.

I'm positive this list is by far not exhaustive.

So no, pirating something is not taking someone's work time, since their time and money spend for distribution is effectively zero.

[greggman]

That might make it different than a plumber but how is that different than a lawyer or accountant. The result of their work is often just data. That data can be duplicated for free. By your argument I should therefore not have to pay them?

I'm not saying they are the same but I have yet to see someone clearly make the distinction on why one person's duplicate able work needed to be paid for and another's is not.