Do we have to do this song and dance every single time there's a discussion about copyright? This is yet another example of a semantic argument as a proxy for

Do we have to do this song and dance every single time there's a discussion about copyright? This is yet another example of a semantic argument as a proxy for values. What matters is not whether piracy "is theft", it's how bad we think it is. But by framing the argument as a semantic one, it ensures that people will focus on technicalities and constantly talk past each other, all the while ignoring what actually matters. Agreeing to either definition of the word "theft" is not going to make either side suddenly change their opinion of piracy. So can we all just agree that copying a file without consent and taking a physical object without consent are qualitatively different acts, and have a direct discussion of their relative morality instead?