[trogggy]

This is an absurd example of splitting hairs to try to win a stupid argument and is literally wrong. They don't say that's not the definition. They say one group defines it that way, but "you" might want to use some other word. They don't take an official stance on the definition at all.

Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as “piracy.” In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them. Based on such propaganda, they have procured laws in most of the world to forbid copying in most (or sometimes all) circumstances.

If that's not taking a stance I don't know what they'd have to do.