Whether or not you feel it is an outdated concept, is not what is defined by the law.. I don't know the laws in Italy, but I know what they are here, and it is stealing here.
EDIT:
and to elaborate, if the person was willing to play the game, that means that it does have some value, even if they wouldn't have played it for full price, they might have purchased the item on sale, or through a second-hand retailer. It does mean that the person who would otherwise buy the game, is now not giving money to the retailer, but still receiving the goods.
edit:
And depending on how the good was acquired, this person was potentially enabling other people to steal the game as well, resulting in further 'loss' for a retail outlet, publisher, etc..

Oh the silliness over a word.
Here:
Entry Word: theft
Function: noun
Text:
1 the unlawful taking and carrying away of property without the consent of its owner<theft has never been a big problem at our school>
Synonyms: larceny, robbery, stealing, thievery
Now, read this. Particularly the line where it says: "Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft".

Too easy to argue with so poor arguments, I've lost all my interest in it XD

I bought Age of Empires I, back then. I really liked it. When they released Age of Empires II in US etc, i waited for the European/German release. When they released it here, i waited a day, another day, ANOTHER day..and so on. All the time, a friend was already playing a illegal acquired US version. Well, after a months wait for the local release + a additional week for the local shops to get it, i didn't want to wait anymore. I HAD to play it now.
Well, my friend was so nice to share it.
I still bought the expansion, though.
So if they would have released it at the same time, and if the shops would have stocked it (most likely not a fault of them, as no one had it here, and why would they NOT stock it? They had hundreds of copies of games no one wanted, but not AoE II?), i actually would have bought it.
And if i wouldn't have pirated it, i probably wouldn't have played it, as they missed there chance to sell it to me, and then i wouldn't have bought the expansiion, so they first lost money because they f***** .. messed up the release, and then MADE money because of pirating.

I really wasn't trying to nitpick as such, just these things take on a life of their own when people start reading and writing. This kind of thing usually leads to a ton of back and forth about what is theft and what isn't, and usually there's a lot of opinion and little fact. Just trying to stem the tide while it's still small and keep this thread on track.

You're delving into technicalities which are completely meaningless.
Everything, be it a real, physical good or an 'immaterial' good, can be stolen. If you can steal an idea, you can steal bits and bytes.
Let me put it to you this way. Imagine you want a car. There's a car on the market which costs a certain amount of cash. If you consider it's too much cash and you steal it, you're still attaching a value to the car. Invariably, your theft is the product of a decision you made. This decision took into account a different value for the car and the way you value your time in jail/ability to escape unscathed.
In other words, a product may have a certain value which you might not agree with but you may still attach a value (lower or higher) to it, if you want it.
In the case of computer games. Let's assume that you don't like Barbie dolls and you therefore are not interested in Barbie's Pony Simulator 2000. It has no value to you. You wouldn't pirate it, you wouldn't buy it, you probably wouldn't take it as a gift. It has exactly 0 (arbitrary units) of value to you.
Let's suppose you like space aliens on Mars. You hear of a game called Doom and you're interested. One way or another, there's a value you've attached to it, there's an amount you'd be willing to pay (not necessarily exclusively in money terms) to obtain it.
As it stands, piracy is so easy that obtaining this copy of Doom by pirating it will require, say, 2 units of effort and 1 unit of internet whereas to buy it in a shop would require 50 units of money, 6 of petrol, etc. etc.
But here's the catch - you're still stealing.
To produce the bits and bytes on your hard drive, someone had to invest a lot of money and thought-power to weave literally out of thin air the bits and bytes that you experience on your hard drive as a videogame.
If you found a way to magically quantum organise the electrons in your motherboard to spontaneously produce the bits and bytes that correspond to Doom then you wouldn't be stealing any more than you would be stealing a Fabergé egg if quantum fluctuations produced one in your hand spontaneously.
But because someone consumed his own units of 'stuff', let's say 500 of thought, 3000 of money and 2000 of effort and manpower, the bits and bytes that this process produces is work that has been done and is ultimately worth something.
Piracy, to you, is meaningless because you dispense less 'units' to obtain the same product'. However, from this process, the developer doesn't see a single unit worth to him anything so all of the time, money and effort has gone to waste.
The (monetary, this time) value you attach to a digital good may be different to you than it is for a retailer but it's still there. If you attach a value to something and you obtain it without compensating the producer, you are stealing.
I hate the anti-piracy ads as much as the next guy but the fact is:
If you steal a Lamborgini Gallardo you're still stealing and get this, it's still a lost sale. It doesn't magically 'not count' because you'd never be able to afford one in the first place.
The way copyright is enforced in a lot of countries is severely lacking because governments and bureaucracies are very slow to react to the innovations the information age provides to the production of goods but it is still an ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY IDEA else there would be absolutely no incentive to innovate.
If you're telling me that copyright is outdated, I challenge you to try to invent something and, most importantly, monetise the invention.
Everyone has ideas, but unless there's a way to protect their means to profit exclusively from their own ideas (and effort) there's nothing to stop a freeloader from taking the idea and making it himself to his own profit.
I think you're confusing free speech and goods such as property and you're sounding quite inane.

I recently found this article, and found it quite sound. I was eager to check what you said on this forum, as I am under the impression that there are quite a few enlightened people here with an interest to the matter.
I find it a bit disturbing that some of the posters here seem to not having read the article, while not stating it clearly. Like the arstechnica link is actualy in the article in question, and the need to have global distribution at the same time is one of the points the articlewriter stresses in the end.
I have to agree that the first part is a bit "fuzzy", but it builds up to the last half that is realy to the point.

You can't steal an idea, therefore by your own argument you can't steal bits and bytes.
Theft requires that you deprive the original owner of their property, and you can't deprive someone of an idea unless you somehow manage to delete it from their memory.
Redhat make plenty of money from software that anyone can download for free. Most of the games here on Gog are probably readily available on p2p sites, yet I've spent hundreds of dollars here buying legitimate copies. In my last job all the software I wrote was available to download for free from our web site (binaries only, though) and in my current job our customers generally get a full copy of the source.
Copyright is an insanely outdated concept which has no place in the 21st century. It's one of the greatest barriers to innovation: look at the recent removal of all the 'Downfall' videos from Youtube as a glaring example.

Thanks for the bump -- the article is a fantastic eye-opener.
They make money through support. Oh, and this ^^^...
... and this ^^^ have nothing to do with, and in no way, shape or form prove or disprove this:
BTW, since when "Downfall" parody videos became innovation?

I think you're proving my point. The way GOG does business is still abiding to the rules that govern international copyright legislation.
Both you and I have a problem with the way copyright is enforced nowadays, I absolutely agree. I recently got the opportunity to watch a rented DVD (for the first time in years!) and I was stunned at the amount of crap you have to slog through, INCLUDING an anti-pirating ad, presumably viewable by a paying customer!! The first thing I thought was: why do I have to go through this when I can get a better product off piratebay?
But it's not a problem of copyright, it's a problem of how to approach it.
Copyright is absolutely necessary. Without copyright, anyone could take the products you're making in your job and sell them as their own and not pay you a cent, and they would be in their full rights.
The problem of the early 21st century, and I dare say that it's slowly being overcome by a new and younger generation in media companies, is the enforcement. The internet is a technology which enables distribution but that's about it. The gramophone was at its origin probably a source of piracy in its day (although I care not to research it) before broadcasters learned how to exploit it fairly, give the consumer the media they desired and make money off it.
People will make art for the sake of art, sure, but it's not so obvious in the world of entertainment (and not so clear cut in the world of art either after all).
If you made a videogame on your own, with your own time and effort and sweat poured into it, I would find it very hard to believe that you would be willing to piss all that effort away in p2p because you think copyright is outdated. But since you obviously possess a progressive view of copyright enforcement, you would probably make it available at a fair price and with little to no kinks in the distribution.
I could get Fallout 2 off demonoid in the blink of an eye, but rationally speaking it would not be as worth to me as GOG's version because GOG have an added value proposition (an effort on their part!) which is the promise that it works without a hassle. No messing about with cracks, no messing about with flakey seeders or potential viruses. Apart from the conscious and emotional decision of wishing to purchase such a legendary game for such a fair price, rationally speaking GOG simply offer a superior product to p2p. So do Steam. In fact, I'm finding it a little hard to recall which was the last game I actually honest to god pirated. And at the end of the day, making a monetary investment also pays off in the enjoyment of the game because you have invested something tangible in it yourself. p2p is free and by definition cheap but the experience, for me, is going to be just as cheap.
My point is that you have to be able to make the distinction between copyright and enforcement of copyright. Work and effort deserve a monetary compensation if you're going to use it for your own gain. If a creator chooses to make his work freely available then it's his choice.
And just a minor point on Red Hat but, although they base their operations on software that's technically available free of charge, they still operate a knowledge-based shop and that's where the money comes from. The tools they work on may be free but you can't 'pirate' Red Hat's Enterprise experience or support.
Finally, I agree with the below poster with my dismay at your choice of media as an example of innovation.

For the love of gaming, please do not give Epic any of your money. Seriously these guys have turned into the biggest jerks in the industry. Listening to Cliff Bleszinski spit all over the PC gamers that made his company what it is today is just sickening.
If you want to pay for games and reward game devs, do so, but please consider rewarding a company that actually treats you well, especially as a PC gamer. Epic is way, way down that list.
UT3 was actually a kick in the crotch all by itself, promised Linux server, nixed; unpatched bugs for years now, check; blame PC pirates for poor sales of their poorly made game, check. All they care about is cranking out their next Gears of War title to cash in.
You know, when Silicon Knights sued them over the Too Human engine debacle, I though for sure SK was just being idiots and granstanding since they couldn't get their game out the door. Yep, I'm pretty sure I was wrong, Epic even screws the folks that pay them 100,000s of dollars to use their game engine.
My sister would just get an education in my dirty movie preferences if she did that, lol!

This is literally what kills me. I could show you pictures of my DVD or game collection that would literally floor folks who consider themselves hardcore (and I do know there are even "hardercore" folks out there!).
I have been hit over and over again with DRM crap over the years. People say to vote with your wallet. I have and it doesn't work, instead I hear crap like "Here's the problem right now; the person who is savvy enough to want to have a good PC to upgrade their video card, is a person who is savvy enough to know bit torrent to know all the elements so they can pirate software." from Cliffy B when I bought his frigging unpatched mess of UT3 and a few extra copies to give to friends!
So I ask, voting with my wallet doesn't work, they just kick me harder whenever I give them a chance. What does work?

Not that they're of the same quality, but by your measure much of Shakespeare was not innovation either. After all many of his stories were inspired by much older works. And The Brothers Grimm straight up copied down other people's stories, what a waste!
@adricv (you said "Copyright is absolutely necessary. Without copyright, anyone could take the products you're making in your job and sell them as their own and not pay you a cent, and they would be in their full rights. ")
Copyright is fairly new and it's an alienable right to boot (I'm speaking of US law here, specifically). It was not created, as you imply, to help people make money, it was created with the idea that monetary motivation would increase the size of the public domain. Since Steamboat Willie is still under copyright and no one else can use "the mouse" in derivative works, it seems to have turned out that extra monetary motivation actually harmed the public domain pretty severely, instead of increasing it.
And it is clear that a rich public domain is possible without any copyright at all.
The US founders were as wrong about copyright as they were about slavery. We have precedent for abolishing laws and practices, even ones set forth by the Constitution, that run counter to the public welfare.
I understand that you have a hard time imagining getting paid with no copyright. I assure you, I write software and copyright has very little to do with me getting paid, as counter intuitive as that may sound. I assure you there are many ways to get works created even without any copyright at all.

There is no way that the US founders ever thought that copyright would be extended this long.
Unfortunately, the US currently has the best government and laws that money can buy and Disney has a shit ton of money.

That is actually really hard to imagine for me. At least if the amount being paid shall be comparable to a system with copyrights.

To the pirates and free-loaders of the industry - for whatever the reason they are doing it, I only got this to say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx40udwQvZI
That Tweakguides article is excellent in my opinion, and perfectly reflects my own views on the matter. If you can't get your stuff square and fair, you shouldn't' get it at all. EOD.