Discuss this idea: if I take a copy of something from you and you still have your copy, it is not stealing.

There are at least three different ways to respond to this question:

 First, we can say that your statement is correct. The situation you describe does not meet legal definitions of theft.  As we can see in the link below, theft only occurs when you take something from someone, intending to deprive them of their property permanently. When you steal a copy of something (I assume we are talking about digital piracy here) you do not deprive the owner of their own copy of the material.

Second, we can say that you are still stealing. You may not be depriving the owner of their own copy, but you are depriving them of the benefits they could get from the copy that you stole.  This is particularly important in the case of digital piracy.  When I pirate a movie, I deprive the studio of the revenue they would have gotten had I bought or rented that movie.  I may not be stealing the movie, but I am, in essence, stealing the money I should have paid them for the right to have a copy of the movie.

Finally, we can say that you are not stealing in legal terms but you are stealing in moral/ethical terms.  We can say that, in moral terms, when you take something that you have no right to have, you have stolen it.  You have taken possession of something that you do not deserve to possess.  Therefore, it really does not matter if you have hurt the person who owned it. You have stolen because you have taken something that you have no right to possess.

 Which of these arguments makes the most sense to you?