There's deprivation of future value and deprivation of present value. The owner can continue to sell a digital apple, but it's not clear to me that "theft" inherently deprives the owner of future value. For example, I could steal your car for a night of joyriding and return it unharmed the next day. You might reasonably say that a theft occurred even though you retain the car afterwards. Note that I'm aware this example isn't perfectly analogous to digital goods.

Theres neither with piracy.

Like you have to assume that the lack of the piracy would lead to an actual sale. Which isnt the case at all.

Turn your apple metaphor around.

You grow an apple. You plant the seeds and scare off pests for like 12 years and then harvest your first apple.

Apples are scarce resources. You are very much entitled to compensation when selling the apple.

However, despite all the labor, if you could magically copy the apple, feeding the entire human race an infinite amount of apples forever, you would be pretty much morally obligated to do it. Like you wouldnt be faulted for pursuing the value of your labor once, but the idea that you would restrict the flow of apples, arbitrarily, just to try and get the value of your labor for each of an infinite amount of apples is absurd. To further imply that someone was stealing if they stole a copied apple is laughable. Really, any of your infinite apples that rots away in storage rather than finding its way to a hungry person is stealing from the hungry person.

What matters, is scarcity. Non scarce resources really shouldnt follow the same rules as scarce ones.