There isn't any actual property to steal. That's the thing, steal is the wrong word to use, so is thief. I don't think there are words that exist in the english language to encompass the moral implications of downloading media without paying the creator and the producer of that media.

I do firmly believe the negative moral implications of content producers taking so much off the top of content creators take of the transaction to be much worse than the implications of someone downloading a file without paying.

This argument is all about perspective (lots of different right answers). Mine is just one that tends to support the creator not the producer, by attending live shows and book signings. Live appearances are where creators make the money.

Maybe all the content creators need a payment system/network for their web sites that allows guilty parties to pay money directly to them so they don't have to feel bad about downloading their content from sources other than the producers.

How about "polluters" instead of "thief"?

I need to change the oil on my lawn mower. I could spend the 45 minutes it would take to get to an approved oil disposal facility--or I could just dump it in the strip of weeds next to my fence.

The latter will cause no measurable harm. Hell, it might even kill some of the weeds that I don't like there, but because of the way the ground slopes down as it approaches the fence I can't reasonably mow. Even if some of my oil makes it the 50 feet or so down to the ditch that carries rainwater runoff to (eventually) Puget Sound, it will be so dilute by then there will be no measurable harm.

So, is it OK for me to just dump my oil?

No, because even though my dumping would cause no measurable harm, if everyone dumped it would cause great harm to public resources, such as Puget Sound.

The situation is similar with intellectual property. We've set up a public resource--the IP law framework--which gives intellectual goods certain legal attributes designed to make them behave similar to real property, so as to allow for the use of the same economic systems that we use for dealing with physical goods to be applied to intangible goods.

When an individual ignores that framework, he's behaving just like someone dumping oil on their weed patch. They cause no measurable harm, but if a lot of people did it, it would destroy a public resource.

"So, is it OK for me to just dump my oil?

No, because even though my dumping would cause no measurable harm, if everyone dumped it would cause great harm to public resources, such as Puget Sound."

Dumping oil cause SO MUCH measurable harm. It is so interesting how oil spread too thin on water(near molecular size, in fact this is a method to measure its size) and enormously change the air-water interface of big quantities of water and so its properties(chemical concentration(oxigen diffusion) and heat transfer, surface tension), killing a lot of biomass,affecting trees(you can kill trees just with oil(I have seen that with just one can of car oil)as it affects its roots, fish, insects and water wells.

Its harm is VERY measurable.

Biological Oil degrade easily, industrial oil not so.

I don't have to wade into the philosophical argument here.

All I have to say is, you're getting offended that Amazon's suppliers think you will renege on the terms under which they provide you books and "liberate" them for the betterment of mankind as you perceive it.

You really have no business feigning outrage here, because the concerns of Amazon's suppliers are obviously well-founded. You might not renege, but given the opportunity, a huge fraction of all readers clearly will. Hell, they'll do it to avoid paying NINETY NINE CENTS to an independent iPhone software developer.

How about "leech" instead of "thief"?

That's a little more pejorative than I would like, but less so than "thief". We all take more than we give (leech) from time to time. Often we do this with the expectation that we will pay it back - or pay it forward. For examples, consider children, or someone receiving welfare, or someone who buys a cup of coffee in a busy cafe and then takes up a table for three hours. This is a spectrum, too: if your community thinks that you have crossed some line, you will be regarded as a thief.

I like the anonymous payback idea: it could be as simple as a paypal link on the author's web site. If that became widespread, it would be interesting to study the data.

Leeching is more appropriate I think, though I still don't like it. It fits, because it encompasses the thought of "I wouldn't spend money on this, but, if it is free I can't complain too much".

"Freeloader" is the best term I think. It even sounds like "download." The problem with piracy is that it's a tragedy of the commons with the people who buy media subsidizing the consumption of the rest, so that seems like a fair word to use.