Of course! I'd be happy to help clarify some of the arguments against this rhetoric.
A consistent argument levied against the idea of "copying as theft" is that theft usually deprives someone of a good, service, or other form of wealth.
For instance, if one were to steal a car, someone else would now not be able to enjoy or use said car.
In contrast, the digital copying of media deprives nobody of the enjoyment of that media. The only alleged loss incurred is an opportunity cost on the part of the distributor: This download *might* have been converted into a sale, if the downloader had not copied it. Some would argue this is not real theft because that wealth was never materialized to begin with. The individual may have very well *never* purchased an authorized copy of the work.

The use of the term "piracy" could be seen as slanderous because it analogizes sharing media over the internet with the actual practice of sea piracy, which involves armed robbery, hostage taking, and in unfortunate cases, even the loss of life. It could be seen as an attempt to demonize consumers of media simply for failing to render a profit for the distributor.
spam fails_task lang_mismatch pii not_appropriate hate_speech sexual_content quality toxicity humor helpfulness creativity violence