Your question is really vague, so I'll assume you mean which dollar amount is greater, the amount stolen by nautical pirates or the amount stolen by Internet pirates.

This is already really problematic because the theft of a non-rival good is incredibly difficult to measure in terms of economic loss. Producers are likely to overestimate this cost by saying that every person that pirated a film or song equates to a loss of sale (or at the very least over estimate this value) and pirates/defenders of internet piracy are likely to underestimate it. Whereas the theft of a physical good is much easier to calculate it.

However, you would also have to factor in the costs associated with anti-piracy measures, because they also account for an extra cost to producers (either of IP or of shipped goods). This could be extra fuel/expenses for longer more difficult routes for shippers, or expenses related to lobbying and cyber security for IP.

Without doing a ton of calculations, I think it's safe to assume that nautical pirates would win in terms of economic damage. I think you're assuming that nautical piracy is a thing of the past. But the modern day cost of piracy has continued to rise with increased global shipping. In 2013, the global cost of piracy was estimated to be $3.2B.

However, this blog estimates $12.5B per year in music losses from piracy, and $2.7B in lost wages, but like I said earlier, these figures are really dubious for a million reasons.

Still, even if music piracy today is an order of 6x more than nautical piracy (which again, is very generous), internet piracy is a really new phenomenon. So if you add up all of the damages of piracy for 700 years, it will undoubtedly be greater.

Sorry if that isn't a very solid answer, but the question is pretty vague and inherently really difficult to calculate.