Look man. When I steal your priceless documents. By their vary nature (priceless) you can not tell how much damage (in dollars) I have caused to you.
I'm trying to parse the logical argument you're making here, but I can't. Since when is anything actually "priceless"? I thought we were talking about actual products with actual market values here. I'm not even going to comment more on this quote because I can't for the life of me figure out how it's relevant or what you're driving at.
But it is still thief.
No, it's not. Copyright infringement is not theft in the eyes of the law, nor is it theft in any sort of logical sense. And yes, the word is "theft".
Also. Really?You are not taking money from anyone when you pirate something. Pirating something may cause you to not give them money
Really? The fact of the matter is not how it works out. It is that end the end they end up with less and you end up with more.
Did you even read the quote you're responding to? It says "pirating something may cause you to not give them money", which is
exactly what you're arguing.
Also: "You end up with more" ... what, exactly?
If you're responding to the bit about pirating something not necessarily incurring a financial loss: Of course it doesn't all the time. I've watched "Twilight" for cheap laughs, via pirating, but is there any way I would have ever paid for it? Of course not. Well, maybe for $3 in a bargain bin somewhere, but certainly not at market price. Or maybe I'd buy it in a bargain bin anyway despite the fact that I already
have pirated it (I've bought terrible movies for the price of a couple candy bars before). The fact of the matter is that you have no idea what the financial impact is to the production company that I've caused by pirating the movie, or if there even is one. This is just to provide an example.
I provided examples as well. From my experience and what I generally see,
most people have listened to an album illicitly before buying it, whether it's through youtube, being sent a file from a friend, filesharing, or some other method. In these cases, piracy did not incur a financial loss to anyone, and in fact may have helped raise awareness of the musical artists involved. Granted, these days there are legal alternatives for that (official videos on sites like Youtube, services like Pandora, etc.), but that isn't the point; the point is that there are a surprisingly large number of real-world scenarios where a person pirates something and then goes on to buy it regardless, and it is self-evident in such a case that no financial loss to the distributor is involved.
You are right that we cannot ignore the fact that there are many, many people who pirate something
instead of purchasing it. However, this is
not the only common or plausible scenario in the real world. There are people who purchase without pirating, pirate without purchasing, and also people who
do both. Nor is it assumed that a pirate
would have paid for it at all, ever, and even if they would, it cannot be assumed when they would, or what they would pay for it. You would need both telepathy and a pretty powerful crystal ball in order to do that.