For the same reason the IP holder is entitled to a monopoly. The free market doesn't work without competition, and since IP law explicitly gives people monopolies, the only balancing force is piracy.

People in general don't want to pirate, but they will if it's the best option (just look at the often-cited example of Steam). That's the only thing keeping publishers in check. Without it, I'm sure prices for content would be much higher than they are right now.

This is a very silly argument. There are plenty of other entertainment options that are not the anime in question; no one has a right to experience a specific piece of creative content, just because they feel like it and don't like the distribution model. Lots of entitled downvoters on here; I at least applaud you for engaging in discussion.

Should you be able to attend an event without a ticket, just because that venue has a "monopoly" on that evening's entertainment? You're not reducing the enjoyment of others, nor are you decreasing the artist's revenue.

> Should you be able to attend an event without a ticket, just because that venue has a "monopoly" on that evening's entertainment? You're not reducing the enjoyment of others, nor are you decreasing the artist's revenue.

This isn't an accurate analogy because the OP has no option to enter the venue at all, even if they want to pay.

> no one has a right to experience a specific piece of creative content

The whole motive behind copyright is that society is entitled to culture. By granting artists a time-limited monopoly, they can be incentivized to create and release more and more content, which makes society's culture richer and more widely available to everyone.

So I'd argue that the status quo OP describes is contrary to the actual objective of copyright itself.

Venues sell out.

Are you suggesting that if i couldn't get a ticket to a concert i want to see, I am entitled to some kind of compensation?

Compensation? No.

That wasn't my main argument however. Please read it below in my original response.

While I'm very much pro-IP, the concept of fair use exists. If the content is available for purchase, then piracy takes from Disney's profits. But if it is not available, and won't be, then pirating it doesn't affect Disney's profits. (There are obviously counter-arguments to this, contingent on the situation.)

This has nothing to do with the concept of "fair use."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use?wprov=sfla1

Yes, it does, both indirectly, as fair use is an example of using copyrighted material and this is another one, and directly, because categorizing a use as fair use involves the commercial impact of the use.

You really ought to read the wikipedia page. Fair use does not allow you to consume copyrighted material. Fair use allows:

>commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, and scholarship.

I'm not saying it's fair use. It isn't. The premise behind my comment relates to the underlying morality behind fair use, which doesn't involve obedience to the law.