"Do you really consider the act of stealing someone's physical property to be the same?"
In principle - absolutely.
"Uploading a video of a child dancing to a song should be prosecuted by the state, with imprisonment as a valid punishment?"
This is not an example of piracy, but of copyright violation.
In any case, copyright is worthy of a thorough analysis. Where to draw the line in such corner cases can be hard to pin down.
Should I be able to author a home movie with copyrighted background music to privately show my friends and family? I think so, under fair use and for the same reason that I can buy a cd or dvd and view it with others (who didn't personally enter into contractual stipulations by purchasing it).
Should I be able to upload it to youtube - since it's a convenient venue for sharing? If it's restricted to private, invitation only viewing, I think so. If it's exposed publicly, then, unfortunately, no.
Should I be able to profit commercially from it without royalties? Of course not.
On the other hand, say I happened to catch on video my child spontaneously reciting the Magna Carta, and this remarkable event took place in a restaurant that happend to have background music playing. Should I be able to post, share, even profit from? Maybe so. I think the intent (or lack thereof) to violate copyright, while not an absolute metric in all contexts, has merit which is selectively applicable.
It's hard to codify objective assessment of intent into law, but the underlying ethical standard is that of the explicit choice to intentionally violate the property rights of another individual by acquiring a commercially available product outside of lawful venues and apart from legally valid contractual stipulations.
Piracy, on the other hand, is - without exception - a blatant manifestation of such malicious intent.
Those who do it should know it's unethical, and any attempt to justify it is merely a rationalization - as is the attempt to whitewash the practice under ambiguity and semantic nitpickery, which is the purpose of the article at hand.
"There is no loss when something is copied, or the loss is radically different from losing something like your bike..."
The question is not about tangible loss, it's about property rights, and the forceful encroachment thereof.
Being semantically picky about the concept doesn't alter the fact that the property of one individual is interacted with apart from their prerogative, i.e., their right to property is being violated - by force.
There is a loss when something is copied by force, the loss of one's right to private property. Call it theft or not, the legal repercussions should be the same.
I've become accustomed to getting the error when I linger on the page for a bit, and even in that context it's pretty irritating, but tolerable. Just this morning however, I'm able to click on the logo link at top-left, immediately navigate to the bottom, select "more," and get the nasty - that's remarkably dysfunctional.
He couldn't care less about Bitcoin. What he does care about though is the chatter amongst non-Keynesian economists about the need for an objective currency, i.e., a gold standard - a force that would utterly devastate his precious welfare state. Accordingly, an opportunity to ridicule Bitcoin is a perfect segue to take sneaky, conniving, collectivist jabs at gold.