As "the other party", allow me to respond.

1. I was the one that initiated the use of ethics, and the other party is the one that discards my definitions. As I pointed out above, I did not discard your defininition. Instead you seized my last paragraph, and used it to sidetrack the discussion into an argument about whether two words are the same. (Hint: I never said that they were.)
2. Accepting the other party's definitions in this case would involve failing to recognize an important distinction. If you think that my words said that the two were the same, then you are mentally putting words in my mouth that I did not say. Furthermore your arguing about definitions has lead to your sidetracking away from the actual issue that I raised - which is that you made what I think is an unsupportable statement about valid systems of ethics. (It certainly is unsupported at this point.)
3. Since the difference between ethics and morality is central to understanding what I originally said about ethicality, accepting the other party's definitions negates the entire argument for no other reason than simply minimizing conflict over a very real difference of opinion. I'd like to see you explain this (very odd) claim. Of course not as much as I'd like to see you get away from the straw man of claiming that I said that ethics and morality are the same thing, and back to the concrete question of whether your statement about all valid systems of ethics is supported. I happen to think that there are plenty of perfectly plausible ethical systems in which system administrators would not want to perpetuate a copyright violation that they were accidental parties to. You apparently do not, and have not explained why not.