I'm not sure your analogy holds. What's different about the way we "regulate" arson and theft? They're both criminal offenses, and both offenses leave you civilly liable for damages. Finish your point; I'm interested in hearing it.

You're right, it's not the best analogy.

Or maybe it is. People clearly see arson and theft and distinct things even if they don't understand that they're both prosecuted similarly.

But legally speaking arson and theft are closer than copyright infringement and theft.

In UK law, theft is when someone is permanently deprived of something. The thief doesn't have to gain from the act for it to be theft. The similarity between theft and arson would be that rightful owners would be permanently deprived in both cases.