Technically yes, but it is and always has been a shallow argument to claim that copyright infringement is not theft.

Of course it's not the same to duplicate information as it is to remove a physical item, but both are based on an artificial legal concept of property.

The natural state of things is indeed that I can copy any information coming my way, and copyright artificially restricts my right to do so in the eyes of the law.

Then again, the natural state of things is also that if you have a physical item and I want it, then if I am bigger than you/have a bigger gun than you/have more friends than you, then that item is now my possession and not yours, and theft-related statutes artificially restrict my right to take it in the eyes of the law.

In the end, copyright, like physical property, is an economic tool. Society gives it the force of law to make sure that people don't game the system unfairly. It makes no sense to debate that law, in either letter or spirit, without considering the economic implications of breaking it. Those implications are not zero just because information that already exists can be reproduced with near zero marginal cost and time overhead using modern technology.

I don't want to get into a detailed argument here, but there are popular, consistent moral philosophies which hold that (1) physical property rights exist a priori to the state (Locke-style) and so are immoral to violate at all times, and (2) intellectual property rights are a social construction which only have moral import when defined by a legal framework and enforced by a reasonably just government.

In other words, many philosophers do draw a morally relevant distinction between these categories of rights.

I find it amusing that second-rate grammar (loose/lose) and spelling is the norm for some communities, but the second this topic comes up, everyone turns into a armchair semantic guru.

There hasn't been a decades-long campaign to deliberately confuse the concepts of "lose" and "loose". It's just a mistake.

My meta-commentary was on the fact that the issue of semantics seems to serve as a all-too-convenient cognitive escape hatch in these discussions, diverting them from the harder topic at hand: that of intellectual property rights. I find it regrettable that it is employed, as it hinders being able to discuss the problem in a mature, logical fashion.

Very true. Hacker News is not a community where second-rate grammar and spelling is the norm, however.

Also, I'm sure you can see how those who are copying/stealing/whatever you want to call it might wish to call it copying instead of stealing, as that implies a lesser moral judgment (deservedly imo).