Not sure which one offers more content

What, exactly, is being stolen? Theft according to who? Who, or what, benefits from that definition and classification of theft? On what material basis is that definition and classification established? Software is infinitely duplicable without an input of any physical material aside from a negligible amount of electricity. It is practically unrestricted by rules of natural scarcity. Being infinitely duplicable, it makes no sense why a particular piece of software should be anyone's property, instead of being free access to all. The only reason why such notions of so-called "intellectual property" exist is because of the capitalist system which produced them at the behest of the capitalists who financially benefited from such notions. It is only within that context—that bourgeois ideology—that it makes any sense, a context which itself is nonsensical and absurd from an outside perspective.

I'm sorry that you are so intoxicated by such ridiculously bourgeois notions of property and theft that you actually experience guilt for acting in a way that is inconsistent with those notions. It truly is a tragedy that otherwise good people experience self-induced suffering as a consequence of behaving in a way which completely satisfies their own self-interest and which produces pleasure without an iota of pain, but which is nevertheless condemned because it conflicts with the interests of a moneyed elite.

It still doesn't make digital piracy "bad", though.

If everyone would pirate every game they wanted I don't think gaming would be a thing anymore tbh...

That's not the fault of digital piracy. That is the fault of the system which arbitrarily and artificially restricts infinitely duplicable products for the financial gain of its apparent "owners".

A physical commodity is the delivered commodity at the end of a contract.

As far as I'm aware, software is not a physical commodity precisely because it is not a tangible good. It can be delivered at the end of a contract and traded as a commodity, but it is not a physical commodity in the same respect as gold or silver. In any case, I wasn't using "physical commodity" in any sort of technical sense; I was referring strictly to the fact that software is a commodity that is, by definition, not physical. It can be physically transported by encoding it onto a disk or other storage device or hardware, but the software itself is not a physical, tangible commodity (and shouldn't be a commodity at all).

So why isn't software that you buy a commodity (you order a game = contract, you get the game = physical commodity).

Because you are not purchasing a physical commodity. You are purchasing a copy of the software that has been encoded onto a storage device. Strictly speaking, you are purchasing the physical product on which the software is encoded and the license to legally use that product; you aren't even purchasing the product itself, copy or otherwise. In that same sense, there is no such thing as actually purchasing the game or software itself on Steam; users simply purchase licenses to play a copy of the game or use a copy of the software, which can be revoked at any time.

Software may be a commodity, but that is another matter entirely. I oppose the commodification of software, just as I oppose the commodification of labor, capital goods, and basically everything else.

Just because you can copy it without deterioration doesn't change what it is.

Yes it most certainly does. If some this is infinitely duplicable and reproducible, it is no longer governed by the law of natural scarcity. It is, for all intents and purposes, a post-scarcity good. As such, it makes no rational sense to restrict access to it or copies of it. The only way doing so makes sense is from a bourgeois perspective, where socially constructed notions of property are treated as sacrosanct dicta which allots the owner with unlimited exclusionary rights over that which one owns, regardless of how useful it may be to society or needed it may be by others.

You can steal an apple, but that doesn't mean it's free all of a sudden.

An apple is a physical, tangible good that is not infinitely reproducible. Unlike software, apples are consumed in the process of their use and deteriorate over time. It's simply dishonest of you to compare software to an apple. Either that, or you legitimately can't conceptually distinguish between the two, in which case you may just not be intellectually fit for this discussion.

You can xerox a dollar bill, that doesn't make it legitimate money.

That's because money isn't just paper. It's a complex weave of multiple fabrics and metals with government-issued technology embedded in, and imprinted on, each and every single bill. If you were to acquire a money-printing machine, however, and manufacture facsimiles of a given country's currency complete with their own unique serial codes, then those printed bills would be, for all intents and purposes, actual money and would be accepted as such anywhere in the world that accepts those bills. They may not have been printed by an official agency or institution, and thus may be legally classified as counterfeit, but they would nevertheless function as money.

Because that's probably closest to your case.

In a physically analogous sense, perhaps, and in fact it only buttresses my point. The only reason why money isn't available for free access, however, is because of its function as a currency—which, consequently, is what gives money its value. Software isn't a currency and moreover isn't even physically real, so such restrictions do not apply.

Software/music/movies can be copied without deterioration, so it has no value.

That's absurd. Value is, fundamentally, a subjective quality as determined by subjective agents. When treated as an objective quality, value has many forms, two of which are exchange-value and use-value (utility). Just because something is infinitely duplicable, that doesn't mean each duplicate does not have use-value. Even in contemporary capitalism, those copies (or, strictly speaking, licenses to use those copies) still have exchange-value, hence why they can be priced on the market.

I don't know what notion of value you have, but it doesn't appear to have any basis in reality, material or otherwise.

Let's say you're a student. But at graduation, you're getting an elf spotting certificate. Which is very nice, but useless. Because that's what happens. You spent a lot of years at university and end up with a useless certificate.

Are you seriously telling me that the value of attending college or university is solely determined by that résumé-aggrandizing piece of toilet paper you get upon graduation? Surely, you aren't serious? That may be one of the functions of colleges and universities in contemporary capitalism, but even in capitalism that isn't its only value.

Well, people spent time making a game/song/movie and you're just stealing their hard work. Because that's the bottom line.

Like I already explained, the notion of "theft"—and, similarly, of "property"—is rendered absurd when applied to intangible and infinitely duplicable products like software. It may seem to make sense, since you accept spooky as fuck nonsense like "intellectual property rights" as true, but that is only because you are viewing it from a fundamentally bourgeois perspective. You have yet to prove that any theft is occurring, or that the software is even their property. You are simply treating them as a priori givens because you uncritically accept them as true and never bothered to consider whether maybe they even make sense from and outside perspective.

Yes, I'm a programmer. I know what it takes to get software to a customer. And I wouldn't have a job if they said "well, I can copy it, so I'm not gonna pay you".

Welcome to capitalism, where your very life and livelihood is dependent on your economic activities, rather than your economic activities depend on your life and livelihood.

And no "system change" will correct that (or are you thinking of communism - everybody gets paid and eveybody get's the same salary).

That's not what communism is. Do you have the slightest clue whatsoever what communism is? Like at all?