If X was not available to pirate, would you pay for it?
If you would not have paid for X, does pirating X cause any actual loss to its owner?
If you would not have paid for it either way (even if that were the only option) and you haven’t caused them a loss of revenue by pirating it, did you impact the creator at all?
The counter to this is always that just because someone wouldn’t pay doesn’t mean the creator’s work has no value.
To that I would yes that is completely true. The creator’s work has value, but maybe not monetary value.
You can’t always conflate value to money (ex. FOSS, canonical sci-fi lore, protest symbols, etc).
There is also a morality component used against my argument that would say I’m ignoring the intent, consent, and ownership the creator has.
Its usually worded that I’m using outcome-based morality and that the ends always justifies the means by that logic.
But I pay for X, not for access to use X.
If the creator can opt without my consent to remove X from me, I’m not longer obligated to follow that moral constraint. Morality is a two-way street.
The counter to this is always that just because someone wouldn’t pay doesn’t mean the creator’s work has no value. To that I would yes that is completely true. The creator’s work has value, but maybe not monetary value. You can’t always conflate value to money (ex. FOSS, canonical sci-fi lore, protest symbols, etc).
There is also a morality component used against my argument that would say I’m ignoring the intent, consent, and ownership the creator has. Its usually worded that I’m using outcome-based morality and that the ends always justifies the means by that logic. But I pay for X, not for access to use X. If the creator can opt without my consent to remove X from me, I’m not longer obligated to follow that moral constraint. Morality is a two-way street.