I know the question sounds mundane and perhaps even silly at first glance, but, consider it for a moment.
Our qualm with piracy seems to be premised with some notion of loss at the owners/business' expense. Every study I've read calculating loss by software piracy presupposes that, without piracy, every transgressor would have bought the software (particularly the BSA). Additionally, we cannot deny businesses have all the litigious incentive in the world to pursue the highest estimates of damages
Now, by definition piracy is generally
The illegal duplication and distribution of copyrighted files (US Legal, Inc)...
By definition of loss/theft, how is one deprived of their software if the "crime" is only the duplication of said software? How is there loss when the owner(s) not only still own the original piece of the software, but only dealt with general expenses of management, coding, advertisement, et cetera, and not any expenses of the duplication? There is some exception when it comes to physical copies such as video games at stores, for example, in my opinion, because there are direct expenses keeping those games on shelves, producing cases and discs, et cetera.
If we consider even a copy of software [without consent] a form of theft and therefore loss, then would it not be theft for me to legally license software and then duplicate another file of it? After all, even though I licensed the software I still made a duplicate without consent, yes?