Your simply declaring not to be theft because you don't think it causes harm is not an argument, either.
It is in fact an argument. I am arguing that theft implies harm, through the the taking of property of which the original owner can no longer enjoy its use. This comes straight from the dictionary: "the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it"
Now, this argument may be wrong, and maybe theft can also apply to things that are non-exhaustible, such as public goods, but that just makes my argument an incorrect one, not a non-existent one. Your's, on the other hand, seems to lack even this.
I note you haven't even addressed the trespass issue.
That's because the trespass issue is separate from the theft issue, and the theft issue is what we are discussing. Certainly, if the owners of the movie theater made it known that people remaining on their property after their movie is over are trespassing, than that is a legitimate argument against the morality of movie hopping.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
