Not exactly what you're asking, and not meant as an endorsement, but I've heard the following theory, which at least seems plausible.

The theory goes that when the multitude followed Jesus into the wilderness, each individual brought his own bread, but kept it secret, not wanting to share it. Jesus knew that each man had his own bread but that no-one wanted to share it. So according to this theory, it was actually sarcasm when Jesus said: "I have compassion for this crowd, because they have already been with Me three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or they may faint along the way." (Matthew 15:32) Knowing the people had secret bread, Jesus took His disciples' paltry seven loaves of bread, blessed and broke them, and instructed the disciples to distribute them.

Each person was so ashamed then (according to the theory) that he ate his own bread, rather than take the portion of the disciples' bread that came around. Some were even so ashamed of their greed, that they added some of their own bread to the disciples', so that: "They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. A total of four thousand men were fed, in addition to women and children." (15:37-38)

That interpretation removes the miracle part.

My point is that there's a two-thousand year-old story that has as its premise the uncontroversial ethical stance that if one had the power to turn a scarce amount of something into a surplus one ought to do it.

Now we have technology that allows us to turn a scarce amount into a surplus with zero marginal cost (and with Bittorrent an amazingly low distribution cost, though I have no idea if it's actually zero).

Is the response from the sacred places where that story has been passed down to us really just crickets in the face of this new technology?

Just to be clear-- I understand that the parable is taken as one symbolic part of a much more complex spiritual belief system. But if the leaders and adherents don't even seem to notice when a change in technology makes that symbolic part be literally true-- much less consider the ethical implications-- what does that say about the ethical thrust of the symbolic interpretation and/or the spiritual belief system?

I do wish more churches would take advantage of the fact (they're probably unaware of it) that U.S. Copyright Law has exemptions for churches. So if you wanted to, say, show "The Passion of the Christ" in church as part of worship, it would be perfectly legal with no license or agreement or anything.

I think the reason churches don't voice up about stuff like bittorrent is because it's still mainly used for entertainment which, while fun, isn't really urgent [1]. If we imagine a nightmare scenario where copyright law goes even more insane and Amazon.com suddenly obtains sole copyright of the New Testament and all its translations, then you'd see the church endorsing piracy real quick ;)

If you feel called by the Holy Spirit to start the first Christ's Church of the Holy Torrent, (as opposed to just coming up with the idea on your own), then maybe you should start that church. I would donate.

[1] A possible exception would be scihub and the like. Here, we see the supreme irony of academics trumpeting the triumph of humanist reason--and then giving away their copyright to a for-profit company! LOL! It really proves some of the things Jesus said, like, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be laid waste" (Matthew 12:25), or, "He who does not gather with Me scatters" (12:30).

It is a bit strong to call this a "theory" since there is no evidence whatsoever for it. Of course religion is about faith, so you can believe anything you want.

The loaves and fishes miracle started with the materials being freely given, which is not really the case in scenarios where file sharing is ethically dicey. Really not a solid comparison, I would say.

Sci-hub is about the most solid comparison I can think of (given a few moments to consider the comparison). But it's not quite right because the articles being shared are from research done for the public good which were typically already paid for by the public good. In the parable nobody paid ahead of time for the future possibility of the miracle feeding everyone.

But that's a difference in the opposite direction from your "ethically dicey" comment. Jesus' miracle was way more radical than doing an end-run around an anachronistic business model to redistribute research the public already paid to get.

Interesting point. I lean towards agreeing that sci-hub is ethical civil disobedience on that basis. That's not a point about file sharing overall, though, nor (I think) do you need the loaves and fishes to justify it.