The "Piracy = Theft" Debate

I saw this today:
 

This is a defense I see a lot, actually (along with the "we wouldn't have paid for it anyway" defense). When I call piracy "theft" (as I have), in the eyes of many, I am using unnecessarily inflammatory language.

Which I might be. The problem is, when people hear "copyright infringement" or "an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization," it sounds like there is no real victim (and even if there is a victim, it's a massive, wealthy corporation, so who gives a shit?).

Obviously, the car analogy is bad...bad for people making the analogy, and bad for people attacking it.The analogy completely misses the point. Intellectual property is still property, just not in a physical sense. So when you steal intellectual property, you're still stealing (hence, "theft"). But don't take it from me. Take it from this fucking Motivational Poster that I just made (because folks just fucking love those silly, ironic motivational posters):

(click on me if you want to read me -- my font is too small!)

Does that clear things up? The problem with audio-visual intellectual property is that it's so easy to copy and distribute, and (generally) after you watch a film (or TV episode) you don't watch it repeatedly (unlike music, which gets played repeatedly the more you like a song).

But if we must use the car analogy, let's use it correctly:

Imagine you downloaded an exact copy of a Maserati for free, from some website (http://www.freemaserationline.net). Imagine if you lived next to someone who paid full price for an identical (legit) Maserati. Don't you think that person would be a little pissed off? Don't you think that person would regret paying full price for something he could have had for free? Don't you think Maserati would be a little pissed off that the thing they spent millions of dollars creating was just re-appropriated by someone else? Isn't the phrase "re-appropriated by someone else" another way of saying "stolen"? Isn't "stealing" another word for "theft?"

Does that clear things up? Am I missing something? The problem with intellectual property theft is this idea that there is no victim ("Imagine your car gets stolen, but it's still there in the morning.") There is a victim -- the person (or persons) who created the thing. By copying their creation without consent, you're "depriving the creator of potential income." Depriving someone of something that is legally theirs is the dictionary definition of theft.

Again, am I missing something?