More specifically, if you're infringing something, it should be to gain momentum or some other asset that you can use once your ability to infringe goes away, which it will if/when you become successful.
Isn't that sort of a horrible, morally bankrupt thing to say?
If there is no better reason to infringe than you want to make some profit, then you're just a scumbag. I'd hope there was some other moral stance you are taking before you infringe.
YouTubers will surely say the ends justify the means, that the TV monopoly needed disruption, and it was good for consumers to break down traditional ideas about copyrights. Maybe that's just a thin veneer on greed, but it's a start at least.
If you can make something of value that persists after you stop infringing, then I would say it's worth it to the world. For example, YouTube is a great asset to the world that would not exist without early infringement. But that's a moral calculus you have to do for yourself.
..and under no circumstance consider theft an actual strategy. AFAIK it only worked for YouTube due to the virginal DMCA still receiving initial court testing, and probably only then due also to the company's prolonged ability to afford legal representation.
If there is no better reason to infringe than you want to make some profit, then you're just a scumbag. I'd hope there was some other moral stance you are taking before you infringe.
YouTubers will surely say the ends justify the means, that the TV monopoly needed disruption, and it was good for consumers to break down traditional ideas about copyrights. Maybe that's just a thin veneer on greed, but it's a start at least.