Without judgment I find it amusing that these arguments rapidly converge to ones used by the participants on subreddits for shoplifting and stealing.

I'm not saying the acts are equivalent, just that the positions are.

It also feels like statistically I should have read at least one comment where someone is convinced by argument that their copyright infringement is wrong but over twenty years on the Internet, I actually haven't. Very interesting.

It's also pretty easy for me to not judge since I've done things of dubious ethicality myself: I've never paid for a full copy of a textbook. Either I've bought the Asian copy or I've been part of a pool-and-photocopy group. Even now I use scihub preferentially.

Interestingly, the scihub usage is more acceptable online than the pool-and-photocopy but in real life no one has given me any grief for either.

To be honest, I don't feel very guilty either. And I'd do it again. If I attempt to see it as something shameful, convincing arguments defending myself pop out. I suspect it's something in the shape of the elephant and the mahout - the justification comes because I've already decided what I'll do. What I'll do is not rationally justified - that's coming after.

I'd speculate (idly) that this is the same mechanism in other pirates.

I deal with shoplifters daily none have yet expressed the position that private property ought not to exist much less provided a fair line of reasoning supporting the position.

Oh there's a subreddit where they met where they'd say that all the time. Don't know if it's still up.

> You in fact have no inherent right to control other people's computers.

The legal system in your jurisdiction may disagree with you on that one.

> It's hard to justify why you think that creators have a right to the contents of your hard drive and wallet

I never tried to "justify" creators doing anything to your computer or anyone else's? Show me where I said that? That's a preexisting grindy-axe you brought along with you, friend..

I simply said that P2P file sharing denies content creators (big and small) control over the use of the works they own.

Which is strikingly similar to your position that other people shouldn't control your belongings, don't you think?

There is only one class of possessions. All else is aggrements not possessions and in a wholly owned subsidiary of the rich I don't feel morally bound by the agreements between the upper middle class and the owner class.

The agreement is that the government will attempt to keep you and I from improving each other's lots by sharing under the idea that the notes hanging in the air forged of air and emotions are sort of like a ham sandwich.

From what I can tell they have secured increasingly one sided agreements mostly by legalized corruption wherein the parties who write nothing, sing nothing, express nothing, invent nothing but own much make campaign contributions.

Physical property is problematic itself but certainly cannot be fixed incrementally or in total by pretending property isn't a thing because one must still deal with the exclusive nature of physical goods whether we acknowledge the fact or not whereas piracy can indeed simply route around the upper classes contact's.

You seem to be an extremely cynical individual. I'm sorry to see that. Wish I could help.

I'm not sure why you classify abstract reasoning as cynicism. If you are less pessimistic about your fellow man its likely you are merely in a better position where you can afford an objectively less realistic position.

I know I don't regularly worry about how a broken system funnels food into American's trash cans while others starve because I personally have never been in a position where starvation is even remotely possible.