Okay. For the purposes of this exercise we will be setting aside the fact that some pirating is good and some is null. This has to do with solely with pirating that takes away money.
It's a shame you can't actually make that distinction in real life. You're talking about some bizarre imaginary scenario where you actually
know how much money the company is losing. This is never true in the real world unless the other person directly admits to it and would follow through, and even can tell you how much he would pay. But okay, fine, let's assume this.
Okay.
A: You steal goods that production costs and selling price added up to $50. The person who made it and who was going to sell it now has $50 less then he would if you had not stolen it.
B: You steal a game that you would have purchased for $50 if you could not steal it. The person who made it and who was going to sell it now has $50 less then he would if you had not stolen it.
This does not mean that you committed the same crime. If I rob your house of twenty bucks, you have twenty fewer bucks. If I find a $20 bill you drop out of your wallet and keep it instead of telling you, you're short the same amount. That does not mean that I have, in the eyes of the law, committed the same offense.
Seriously though, you cannot say that two crimes are equivalent just because they have the same end results
in some cases. By that logic, I could focus on all the cases of surgery that end in death, discard all other surgeries, and say "surgery has the same end results as murder, and is therefore equivalent".
The fact of the matter is that this whole time, you've been equating piracy with theft, when in reality, you're not talking about piracy at all; you're talking about the subset of piracy where the perpetrators would have bought the product at some specified price, which is extremely far from making up all cases of piracy, is never necessarily the case, and is generally impossible to discern anyway.