Theft - you take something from someone. Result: You have something, someone else does not have that same thing which you just took from them. That is called theft.
Piracy/Copyright-infrigiment - you copy something from someone. Result: You both have that same thing, in digital world, it is exactly to the bit the same. In analog world the someone has the original while your copy will probably be a bit different and unique. Nobody is left without having stuff.
before | after
-------+------
X . | . X Theft
X . | . . Vandalism
X . | X X Copyright infringement
These are clearly different things. It becomes outright quaint when you look at it using the third basic law of human stupidity[1]. According to this law (and assuming a naïve interpretation of the chart above), theft is criminal, vandalism is stupid, but copyright infringement is smart.
The whole debate about stealing is irrelevant, and not very interesting.
1) The way that the internet is configured means that distribution is now nearly free for everyone.
2) People will (and are!) using this to distribute things that other people don't want them to distribute, and may even bankrupt them.
3) Changing this, if even possible, will require fundamentally changing the nature of the internet in it's current form, which will have massive implications for freedom of speech and may bankrupt other industries.
#3 is the only part which is truly interesting. Are we going to break what we have now based on the (possibly incorrect) assumption that it will do anything to help the recording industry?
Copying under the current system is guaranteed... that's what it does. Whether it's "stealing" or "moral" is something else. Whether people go to heaven or hell when they download Season 4 of Sex in the City, or whether their government locks up children from copying a ringtone... These are less interesting points. Societies can take care of themselves on these points, I presume they won't tolerate it.
> The whole debate about stealing is irrelevant, and not very interesting.
Uninteresting, yes. Irrelevant, sadly no. We give words meaning, which tend to linger even when used differently. A careless (or careful!) choice of word can significantly steer the debate. Think for instance of "viral" licences (as if the GPL were a disease), or "mentally ill", which reminds us that mad people aren't mad by choice.
Piracy/Copyright-infrigiment - you copy something from someone. Result: You both have that same thing, in digital world, it is exactly to the bit the same. In analog world the someone has the original while your copy will probably be a bit different and unique. Nobody is left without having stuff.