I strongly disagree. By my interpretation of his stance, you're more than welcome to disagree with copyright as a natural right, but you aren't allowed to use that as justification for theft of copyrighted material which the artists releases for sale.
That is circular logic and represents all that was wrong in the original article. Copyright, as an institution, implies that ownership of data is possible and real, therefore implying that the data can be "stolen".
People who disagree with copyright as an institution would do so conclusively because they do not believe in the ownership of intellectual thought. They believe that there are better, more progressive institutions for cultural progress. They do not agree that somebody owns the content they produce.
The article stubbornly ignores that assessment and then tells people to fuck themselves if they can't subscribe to failed logic.
If artists can't be allowed to keep the content they produce, then why should Chrysler be allowed to sell the cars they manufacture, or Coke to make a profit off of its drinks?
I understand that there are dissenting arguments from the propagation of natural copyright, and while I agree that our patent system is horribly, horribly broken, I do not believe that artists should not be able to set a price, of their choosing, for the release of the works they produce.
Imagine somebody built a matter duplicator. I decide to use it to duplicate a can of soda instead of buying it from the company. The original creator hasn't been paid for their efforts, but they definitely haven't expended any costs due to my duplication. Am I now a pirate of their property? No, they haven't lost any actual property. I haven't taken anything from them physically.
Now imagine somebody built so many of these matter duplicators that we could literally carry them in our pockets and duplicate whatever we want. Should we start putting cameras in everybody's home to make sure they're not duplicating stuff they should be paying for?
This is exactly what we're talking about. We have digital consumer technology that can replicate and distribute almost any media, and the reason these problems have only just started propping up in the last couple decades is because before that, all media was physical. It was on newspaper, or film roll, or vinyl record, or cassette, or in books.
Why should we be paying a company when we aren't losing them anything? Why do they call us thieves when we have not harmed them in any way? Are we supposed to ignore these new technologies because they don't support their business model? Fuck them, I'll use my matter duplicator however I want.
The only way I'll consider giving my money to Coca-Cola when I can just use a matter duplicator, is if they're producing new and tasty beverages that they could not develop without my money. This is exactly my reasoning for being a pirate.
No, I just thought I'd point out that it is in fact illegal.
I think your moral justifications are simply that; justifications. Stealing isn't right, and if you don't want to support an artist, don't buy their work. That is, in my opinion, both the legal and moral way to be on the right side of artists.
I'm still confused. Approximately nobody thinks copyright infringement is legal, even people who spend all day doing nothing but pirating media. There's no reason to point it out. Secondly, "you aren't allowed to use that as justification" means something very different from simply pointing out that the activity is illegal, at least to me.