Secondly, your comparison is not accurate. A car is made for a single user, and priced accordingly. A movie, game or application is made with some estimation of sales, based upon the market size and product quality. Nobody makes Photoshop or Lightwave and expects to sell one copy. If you are in the target market, and get use from the product, yet you take it for free, then of course you are affecting the producer of the product. The fact that nothing physical was moved from a to b makes no difference.

Yes, the products are priced for their target audience, but the price itself helps determine the target audience. When Photoshop is priced at $649, it is defining it's target audience. The people downloading Photoshop for home use (and, for this argument, I will assume businesses are not downloading pirated software) are unlikely willing (or often able) to pay the retail price. Yes, it is not legal, yes they should probably be downloading the Gimp and using that, but we can not pretend that they would actually be a sale. In truth, Adobe is happier that they are using Photoshop over the Gimp. That way the 1% of them or so that actually need to do photo editing at work will lobby their boss to buy photoshop, instead of just downloading the Gimp. The companies are choosing the price-point ASSUMING some degree of piracy. Piracy is part of the factors they use. It is convenient for companies to say that all the people using Photoshop illegally should be sales, but we all know that is not true. The problem comes about when these companies actually believing that all of those piracies should be sales, when that is clearly not true.