Actually, no. There's NO moral difference, it's still stealing. By pirating software, you are taking away something that the owner legally has: The right to sell his craft. Suppose I walked into a book store with a hand scanner, picked up a book, scanned the whole thing in, and then left. Is that theft? They still have their original. What if I went into a store that had a machine that made thousands of some type of tool every day, then took one of those tools and walked out. They can easily make another, at almost no cost, so that's not stealing, right? What if I made a replicator, then walked into a museum and replicated all of Van Goghs works. Would the originals retain their value, as I stood outside making free identical replicas for everyone to take home with them? Just because the result of a craft is a virtual item that can be easily replicated at little/no cost doesn't make it legal to steal it. Your "going home and making one just like it" analogy is also false, as it implies everyone is looking at his work, then going home and writing their own code to do something similar. That's not what's happening here. They're using his code, code he spend time and effort learning, working on, and debugging. Imagine you spent time learning how to draw exceptional images, and took the time to draw a stunning work, expecting to be paid for it. Then your backer doesn't pay, and you realize you spent lots of time and money doing this, and can't make another without selling that piece. You agree to show it to people, and a few people show up, take high res pictures of it, and leave, paying nothing. They then distribute those photos all over the world, rendering your original pretty much worthless. When asked about it, they reply with "art should be free", or "I'm morally opposed to paying for beauty". Isn't that stealing? How many other artists will take the time to make such images in the future? How likely is that artist to do anything art related in the future? How many beautiful pieces has the world missed out on because people were to cheap to spend a buck on a piece art? The bottom line is this: The only way copying software, music, images, or anything digital is not stealing is if the person that put the effort into that product has specifically given permission to do so, or if it's so old that it's declared "public domain" for lack of ownership (like very old books or music). Trying to justify stealing by saying it's "scene" or that it's not really theft because the owner still has their original is bogus. It's wrong, technically, morally, and in most places legally.