If you can show that something is being stolen, then yes. If, on the other hand, no stealing is going on, then no.
The problem I have with the "piracy is theft" thing is that I think its use makes it harder to convince people who counter with arguments saying that the original owner still has the "stolen" item.
For one thing, it's an extra step one needn't take. First you have to convince them that it is actually theft, then you have to convince them that they should do something about it.
If you start with the simple position of "this thing normally costs money, and you haven't paid for it", then you can get straight to the heart of the matter.
Note that I say "convince" and not "be more right than". People indulge in all sorts of self-justification and moral balancing, particularly if they can convince themselves that it's a victimless crime.
The problem I have with the "piracy is theft" thing is that I think its use makes it harder to convince people who counter with arguments saying that the original owner still has the "stolen" item.
For one thing, it's an extra step one needn't take. First you have to convince them that it is actually theft, then you have to convince them that they should do something about it.
If you start with the simple position of "this thing normally costs money, and you haven't paid for it", then you can get straight to the heart of the matter.
Note that I say "convince" and not "be more right than". People indulge in all sorts of self-justification and moral balancing, particularly if they can convince themselves that it's a victimless crime.