What is legal is not a matter of how you feel about what you are doing. Most criminals can justify what they do in their own minds. It usually involves devaluing the work and/or property - or even the life - of someone else. This is precisely the rationale used by those who justify "hacking" software in order to use it without paying the legal owner for the privilege.

That said, I imagine most of us have used a hacked version of one or more programs from time to time. I know I have. But I don't justify doing so by accusing the legal owner of being a greedy capitalist pig or deluding myself that he will somehow benefit from my theft in the long run. That kind of blame the victim mentality and moral sophistry simply add insult to injury and are doubly dishonest. The least we can do is admit to ourselves, if to no one else, that we are stealing, even if we feel the circumstances (like not having the money to pay for it) seem to justify our actions.

If you can hack software without so much as a twinge of conscience then you are a sociopath, plain and simple. Whether you consider "conscience" to be a result of social conditioning, or a God given or innate sense of right and wrong, the fact is that it is an essential part of the social contract that enables society to survive. The kind of hack-resistant software activation that is fast gaining popularity is a legitimate effort on the part of software developers to enforce that contract.

The prevalence of online music piracy a few years ago is anther case in point. If the trend were left unchecked it would eventually have become economically infeasible for music companies and musicians to continue to create new music, not that those stealing the music gave the matter a second thought. On the one hand this piracy symbolized moral decay in society; it also indicated a serious imbalance in the marketplace. It obliged those who produce the music to seek legal remedies. It also inspired Steve Jobs to develop a legitimate way to download music that would be appealing and accessible enough to draw people away from illegal downloads and, at the same time, make enough money for those who create the music to enable them to continue to do so. Though the structure of the market for music is still changing, it is now doing so in a more or less orderly and non-destructive manner. And it demonstrates conclusively that imagination and creativity are every bit as important in business as they are in the arts.

This example also nicely illustrates the interaction between moral values - or the lack thereof - and the legal system. Laws are necessary but are alone insufficient to regulate society. As in the case of the iTunes Music Store, social evolution cannot proceed effectively without economic evolution. It's all a bit abstruse, I know, but the argument about what does and does not constitute theft in cyberspace has been going on for a long time and, in my opinion, could benefit from some timely synthesis.

I expect others can and will expand on this theme.