Way to pick semantics. My point was that the creator gets to offer his work for the price of their choosing. By pirating, you remove that right by paying nothing.
I'd bet that book stores and the author or the work would say otherwise. In fact, Google had just this issue with scanning books, was taken to court over it, and would have lost (which is why they settled for a huge fine out of court). Legally, it is stealing.
And that's where you're wrong. If you were right, hookers would be free. They're not. They're paid for their work, since they technically sell no tangible product outside of "beauty or performance".
Value can be influenced by supply and demand, but neither is the predictor or creator of value. Value is place by the creator of a good, and the market reacts accordingly. If the value is too low, there's a run on the supply until demand is met or supply is exhausted, which then drives up the value in resale. If the value is to high, pent up demand exists and a market for a competitor is formed. At no point does supply and demand itself set the value. Nor at any time does those in the demand side get to choose the value of the supply. Their choice is weather or not to purchase from the supply for the cost set by the one offering the good. Simply taking the good without paying any cost for an item that has a value set on it is called theft.
And how exactly do artists eat? If people don't pay for beauty or work as you stated above, how would artists make a living? How would programmers making "customized applications" make money? After making sad application, it's intangible and there for free, isn't it? Your whole premise is contradicted by your own statement here, since you're talking about someone paying for a custom application, or providing support, which are both forms of work.
Maybe it's not "my philosophy" that need questioning here, but yours. You just detailed two instances of where someone should be paid for their work. Why is it ok to pay for work sometimes, and not at others? How do you decide which work is valid and should be paid for and which isn't? It's clearly not the tangibility of the goods (as you've already stated), since there is nothing tangible when it comes to support or programs (no matter how custom they are).
So by your definition, murder isn't wrong as long as you murder people that you think it's ok to kill, and that can't afford lawyers (or at least who's surviving relatives can't afford them). Nice morals and legal system you have there. Remind me to never visit you.