I like to think of myself like you, only leaning towards the other side of the fence, probably due to the anecdotal success story that is my lifeRenegadePacifist said:It's not circumstance to take something that you don't need and don't have the consent/right to have. Bread, for the starving? Sure. Videogame for the bored? Nope.
The only question I've got about your logic is that It doesn't seem to address the possibility that piracy positively effects the company.
Say if for example they were able to prove, conclusively, that piracy helped spread the market and was responsible for an increase in sales.
By your logic it appears that piracy would still be un-fair and wrong because even though the developer is making profit, the consumer acquired the game without deserving to(as per your usage of deserving). Is this true or am I confused about your statement?
In this case I would disagree as I think should piracy be found to make more money for the developer, piracy would be considered a positive thing, not a negative.