At a moral absolutist standpoint: yea, absolutely. Whether it's harmful or not, the intent is still to avoid paying for what you got, which is pretty straightf

At a moral absolutist standpoint: yea, absolutely. Whether it's harmful or not, the intent is still to avoid paying for what you got, which is pretty straightforward. For almost any other positions: it's murkier. If you take a berry off a bush on public property... what's the morality? Or growing from private property overhanging public that's just dropping fruit and the owners are either not present or clearly allowing fruit to drop? It's theirs, they absolutely could harvest it, but they're not and it's clearly implied that is not going to change. Now what? Yes that's still further towards harmless than you can likely argue software piracy is (... ignoring the network effects of everyone knowing how to use X because everyone pirated it, or I could probably come up with others), but my point is that strict black and white separations have dividing lines and breaking points. Whether there is black or white somewhere isn't really useful to anyone, it's where you draw the line.