Ahem. If you OWN something (like a book or a painting) you can use it, loan it, or sell it as you please. It's yours. You need permission to legally make copies if it is copyrighted, just as you need permission to legally build a device that uses a patented technology. But the object itself is YOURS. There is NO moral ambiguity about loaning it, selling it, or giving it away.
If you purchase an object under a licensing agreement, you don't OWN it, you have LICENSED it. Therefore, all legal usage is determined by the license agreement (as affected by applicable law). The object is NOT yours -- you have merely paid for limited rights to use it. Loaning it, or even using it for yourself in ways excluded by the license, may well be illegal. The OWNERS can take it away from you if you violate the license.
Finally, violating licence agreements, like violating copyrights, is illegal and (usually) immoral, too. But calling it PIRACY is propoganda and a mis-use of the word. A pirate deprives the owner of a physical object. Violating intellectual property rights doesn't deprive the owner of the object. It deprives the owner of the ability to sell it ONLY if the "pirate" sells it to someone who would actually have bought it at the owner's terms. This is usually not the case! Say that someone is selling software at $1000 each and estimates that "pirates" sold 1000 copies. If they say that they therefore lost $1M of sales, they are lying, because if the "pirates" didn't exist, they wouldn't have made 1000 more sales at $1000 each. Their loss is probably about what the "pirates" sold the objects for, since "pirates" (like any other business people) try to sell at the highest prices their customers will pay. Their loss might be $0, and it has been proven that "piracy" sometimes results in legitimate sales that otherwise wouldn't have taken place. (Not that that makes it right -- it's theirs, and they have the right to set the sales terms that they want.)
So, to summarize: "ownership" includes the right to use, loan, and resell; "licensed use" can have practically any limits on allowed use, and intellectual property "piracy" is wrong, but using the emotioanlly loaded term "piracy" to describe intellectual property violations is misleading at best, and is frequently used to justify responses that are way out of proportion to the actual offense. (E.g. the parking lot attendant selling "pirated" CDs who was arrested by a set of gun-weilding toughs from the RIAA, who were dressed as if they were a police SWAT team.)
Enjoy, Aranfell
PS: I am not a lawyer -- I'm talking about how ordinary people have always used the terms "ownership" and "piracy", before certain business groups decided to change the meaning of the latter to suit their purposes.
