Notice "with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". When you infringe copyright by downloading something, you have not deprived the copyright owner of anything, and thus it is not theft.
I'm not ashamed to admit that I have pirated a fair number of comics.
One of the biggest problems comics have is that individual issues are fairly expensive, so buying back-issues to catch up is almost impossibly expensive, especially in large shared universes such as those of Marvel and DC. Pirating comics let me catch up with a large number of ongoing comics, and I now happily spend roughly £50 per week on new releases. I definitely wouldn't be spending that money if I had not been able to pirate some comics and catch up.
Ironically, Game of Thrones is one of the few US TV shows I don't pirate.
I'm British, and most american shows, if they come to British TV at all, come weeks or months behind the USA. Some of the most popular ones air a few days to a week later. Game of Thrones airs on the Monday evening, about 18 hours after the US release, meaning that when I get home from work on Monday, and am ready to watch the show - it's on TV! Now, I'm a "cable cutter" - I don't own a TV, and do all my viewing through the internet. But Game of Thrones is on the Sky Atlantic channel. Sky offer a great online service - SkyGo, which I am happily subscribed to without having a TV in the house. Perhaps if more TV networks/providers had a similar outlook, and made it easier to pay them money to watch their shows, many more would!
You make a great point. Often I (as a UK TV license payer) will pirate a BBC or Channel4 show rather than watch it on iPlayer or 4OD, because the quality of streaming video can be patchy - especially at peak internet times. I've not taken anything I don't already have legal access to. Is that still wrong?
I suspect the main argument against this is that the content provider is not selling you the media or the content. They are selling you access to the media and content in a specific way. It's a pretty flimsy argument, which doesn't make a lot of sense in the digital age; but I suspect it would be a winning argument in any relevant court cases.
With the Kindle, you can either transfer a book to your device by plugging it in via USB, or by using the device's wifi/3G connection to download it directly. This restriction means that these particular books must be transferred over the USB method, not downloaded over a wireless connection.
For regular Kindle users, it's only really an inconvenience. I tend to acquire a book on the amazon website, then turn on the wireless on my Kindle, and it will download. If I were to get one of these books, I'd have to get the cable, plug it into the computer, and figure out how to download books that way.
For people who use the kindle apps on their iOS/Andoids, it means they cannot use these books at all.
I know I'm just feeding the troll here, but I agree 100% with feeling entitled to products which are available in one country, but not mine. The internet has no borders. If friends of mine in a different country can view something; I should be able to view it at the same time. I would be completely willing to pay for it, but the MAFIAA seems to hate the idea of people paying for the content the produce, since there's often no legal way to pay for it.
The main issue for me is that "illegal" only refers to, I imagine, the USA's laws. Age of consent differs wildly from country to country. In Spain, for example, the age of sexual consent is 13. In large numbers of countries, such as Japan and France, incest is completely legal between consenting adults.