[naive]

I'm a pirate, but your graphic just is false. Sure, no physical object is being removed, this does not mean nothing is stolen. If the asset of meaningful value is the control over copywrited information, then uncontrolled access to the information removes this asset from the original copywrite holder. You are literally removing the control of the information from its owners.

There is no question that piracy has caused damages to companies. This happens often when market trends change and companies fail to adapt. Companies come and go all the time. Sometimes the niche market they filled is no longer economically viable. That is the case of any company whose main income was in the distribution of "intellectual property". The only reason they're still around is because these copyright laws exist and that they've redesigned some of their marketing strategies (like iTunes and such). They'd be much better of creating subscription services similar to Netflix.

I'll use this analogy again, if I were to copy your girlfriends nudes without permission, I have stolen information from you. You no longer control the rights of who gets to view that information and it can be spread without your control and you no longer "own" exclusive control.

This is why you don't take nude pictures of yourself. You *could* however get someone for breaking into your home or property to gain access to such things. Personally, if someone stole nude pictures of me and spread them around town, I'd shrug my shoulders and move along.

Imagine you are a car manufacturer, but people do not need to buy your cars anymore because they can just clone any car they find for free. Ferrari's could be owned by everyone, people who bought Ferrari's would lose their shirts on the value as they can no longer sell them. The brand would be devalued, as homeless people would have just as much access to Ferrari's as the elite of society. The car example you listed is just a poor analogy and it presumes that taking a physical object is the only way to commit "theft".

If physical objects could be created for practically nothing, then we would simply do away with currency and move on to an ideal Marxist form of government.

It all comes down to value. Copyright as a monopoly creates a falsified demand value for something that has no significant value by restricting the distribution to a single provider. The internet, on the other hand, distributes en masse and destroys that artificial value.

So, the object to be sold no longer having value, the market needs to focus on things that still do have value in the world, namely physical goods and labor. As Gabe Newell put it best, these large companies need to stop harassing their customers and compete against piracy. Offer something that piracy can't offer. They'd make more money that way and we'd all be a lot happier for it

What makes the value of information artificial? Information is the *most* valuable commodity in the world. I agree that piracy should be fought through competition rather than legislation, however I do not agree the concept that movie studios should be obliged to give away their work for free because some view the prices as artificially inflated.

Without at least basic tools in order to fight intellectual property theft, it would severely hinder the ability for individuals to develop anything. Imagine if you created the best movie ever made with your life savings  and MGM Studios came along, copied it from your hdd when you were asleep and printed a billion DVDs of it and sold them all for record earnings long before you could bring your own version to the market. Would they be ethically justified in such an action because they view DVD printing as a service, and your movie as having no inherent value? Delivery systems are only one part of the equation, and are often the least valuable consideration when it comes to ownership of information. Copywrite protects the small guys from the big guys too. 

If you feel that Ferraris are artificially overpriced, that does not mean one can simply steal their designs and build their own and bring it to the market to all who just don't want to pay more for the official Ferrari brand name.  Your options are to pay the asking price, boycott, develop your own unique competitor, or steal it.  It seems you are viewing information as something that simply exists, but it often takes large quantities of money to produce. If the media that one wishes to pirate has nothing but artificial value, then why is it worth the legal implications of pirating it? It clearly is information that people desire, thus it has value. There is nothing artificial about it.