Re: False analogy
Copyright infringement is NOT equivalent to 'counterfeiting'.
With copyright, what is being 'taken' is not any physical goods, nor is a fake copy of an original being made. Whatever the EFFECTS, the action that is being taken is not akin to counterfeiting.
Copyright is the assignment of rights. The specific rights granted varies by type of work, location and other factors.
The most fundamental right granted by copyright is the exclusive right to produce copies that work. Quite simple, really. In practice, you delegate certain portions of that right to third parties such as publishers and, in many cases, then receive payment.
When you infringe on copyright, you infringe on the rights holder's exclusive right to copy that work. You are not 'stealing', your are not 'counterfeiting' and you are not 'pirating' (whatever that even means).
The infringement can be relatively mild, like making a copy for your own use (e.g. of a rented movie), or it can be rather severe, which would involve making illegal copies and then distributing them for personal gain. And of course there are many shades in between, like making a copy of a CD you own for a friend (which could be considered 'distribution').
What should be criminal is another question but whatever the answer, that crime is not theft and should not be considered or proclaimed as such.
It is important to note that copyright infringement has nothing to do with whether the work is distributed for a fee or not. A 'free' ebook or music track still has copyright protections. What this means is that any definition of copyright that involves talk of rights holders being deprived of potential sales or decreasing the value of their works is faulty as it excludes or otherwise de-emphasises works which are not distributed for money - or not distributed at all.
The recent celebrity nude photo releases show this very well. Reproducing these images is, in addition to a violation of privacy, a breach of copyright. If (e.g.) Jennifer Lawrence takes a photo of herself, she is the authour of that work and therefore the automatic rights-holder so reproducing it is infringing those rights.
There is no devaluing and no lost sales of the works as they were never going to be published*. You might argue that Jennifer Lawrence herself has been devalued and may loose out, financially, from this, but that is beside the point as the copyright is on the work itself and not the subject.
* - Well, that we know of. We can proceed anyway as it is rather likely that at least some of these celebrities did not intend to ever publish these photos.