[Locke1689]

Both things can be true.

The parent is right that pirating content and not paying for it is not morally defensible if you believe that intellectual property has value.

You are correct that people often do immoral things. A refusal to believe that people often do things which violate their own moral code is a denial of fundamental human nature.

A smart distributor will say, "if we make barriers too high to easily own this content piracy rates will rise" while a smart pirate would say, "my actions are morally wrong but I don't care because it benefits me."

[icebraining]

HN comments are IP. If everyone you upvoted asked you to pay $20 for the value they provided, would you?

We all get value for free; life would be impossible if we didn't. So either you're like Andrew Joseph Galambos, who changed his name to not infringe on his father's, and who put a coin in a box every time he used the word "liberty" (to pay its supposed inventor, Thomas Paine), or your position is inconsistent and ad-hoc.

A pirate is no worse for a creator than someone who simply abstains from the content. So in my opinion, either the two are wrong or none of them is.

(Note to everyone else: ad-hominem trolls will be ignored)

[tomjen3]

Do you really want to open that can of worms?

Because I won't argue the point any more, but piracy is theft when people loose something.