No, it makes you look like you want to protect the American interests oversea while also thinking about the children.
Not really. Pirated software can be "low quality". They could contain viruses, which also could look bad for the company that made the software.
The "piracy" that Biden, et al, are speaking of here is not individuals downloading torrents, but bootleggers (largely in China) reproducing and selling works. And, in this case, the similarities are strong.
When you buy an item-- be it a Xanax, a Kevlar vest, or a Pink Floyd CD-- you want to know that it is "authentic" (i.e., made to the proper spec) which implies "authorized".
That's not such a big stretch, is it?
Yes, I do care that my Pink Floyd CD is authentic, because I would be pissed off to find out that I shelled out money for Pink Floyd studio album and got a recording of my neighbor singing in the shower or a recording of a Pink Floyd live performance. But that doesn't really have much to do with piracy. In this case we're talking about fraud, not illegal distribution.
Interestingly enough, the situation is not that much different when it comes to material goods, like Xanax or Kevlar vests. If my doctor told me to buy Nexium and I decided to do exactly what he said and buy that particular brand and a pharmacy sold me a knock-off, I would be pissed off because I paid for Nexium (as opposed to a cheaper pill with the exact same dose of esomeprazol). I would be pissed off because I was scammed. I would definitely not be pissed off that Nexium's brand was infringed by whoever made the knock-off.
I do realize that there's a cause-effect relationship there: if it was difficult for people to copy someone else's brand, I would be safer from that kind of fraud. But it's a long way from recognizing that relationship and putting the piracy and counterfeits in the same bag.
Nothing's "free" to the extent that people wouldn't care if it's crap. Actually, there's a nice analogy: that flaming bag of dog doo on your porch was likely free too, but it may cause damage. Is it a non-issue because it's free?
Downloading is asynchronous. It may cost some computer resources, but probably not any which you would not have used anyways.
You're missing the point. It's practically free, certainly much freer than the retail price. And usually finding the illegal version something (that's worth it) is just a matter of time.
People illegally downloading don't care about authenticity because it's practically free and is worth it to them. Obviously if the time it takes to acquire it illegally over legally is more than its worth to the person, he/she wouldn't do it (or shouldn't do it), but for the majority of people it isn't true.
Maybe my interpretation is wrong, but the "logic" seems to be: piracy is about copyright (one kind of intellectual property) infringement, counterfeit goods are about trademark (another kind of intellectual property) infringement, therefore they should be in the same bag. That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it?