Nope. If I hire somebody to do something and they do it, I legally have to give them the money. If somebody writes a book or song I like, I don't have to give that person anything. The creator is doing that on spec. There is no contract between me and the creator.
In other words, in the theft of services case, I have caused somebody else to do some work for me specifically. That work is generally not transferable, and so whoever it is has done work that will not be recompensed. In the case of copyright, the creator has published something that is not specifically for me, and is hoping for (not contracting for) compensation from the general public.
If I ask a lawyer to do work for me and then don't pay him, I've done him a direct harm. He could have been selling that time to somebody else, or playing World of Warcraft during it, or something else. If I make a copy of a copyrighted work, I've done nobody any direct harm. I haven't caused the creator to work extra at all. To the lawyer, it matters whether I ask him to work for me, but to the creator, it doesn't matter if I make an illegitimate copy. The creator, indeed, is better off selling ten thousand copies and having a million people pirate it, than selling a thousand copies with no piracy.
If you're going to argue in favor of copyrights, you need to understand this. You need to use valid arguments. If you use invalid arguments, and insist on them, it makes it look like there are no valid arguments. Copyright infringement is not theft in any form. It does not deprive anybody of property or time. It may or may not reduce earnings from a creative work.
There are good arguments for copyrights (although not for the current copyright duration). They aren't the same as the ones against theft.