Ask HN: What are the strongest moral arguments against piracy?

  I agree that:
    - theft necessarily deprives the victim of property
    - an of act copyright infringement *can* adversely affect the victim
    - copyright gives many people an incentive to create art
    - some artists support themselves entirely via profits from copyright
  I disagree that:
    - copyrighted material is the equivalent of property
    - copyright infringement *ever* deprives the victim of property
    - an act of copyright infringement necessarily affects the victim adversely
    - copyright infringement today noticeably harms the progress of the arts

  "Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give
  an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men
  to pursue ideas..."

  "That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the
  moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to
  have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature... Society may give an
  exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to
  pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done,
  according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint
  from anybody... generally speaking, other nations have thought that these
  monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society"
  -- Thomas Jefferson

  "That, as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be
  glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we
  should do freely and generously."
  --Benjamin Franklin

  "While one great object was, by holding out a reasonable reward to inventors, and
  giving them an exclusive right to their inventions for a limited period, to
  stimulate the efforts of genius; the main object was `to promote the progress of
  science and useful arts;' and this could be done best, by giving the public at
  large a right to make, construct, use, and vend the thing invented, at as early a 
  period as possible, having a due regard to the rights of the inventor. If an
  inventor should be permitted to hold back from the knowledge of the public the
  secrets of his invention; if he should for a long period of years retain the
  monopoly, and make, and sell his invention publicly, and thus gather the whole
  profits of it, relying upon his superior skill and knowledge of the structure;
  and then, and then only, when the danger of competition should force him to
  secure the exclusive right, he should be allowed to take out a patent, and thus
  exclude the public from any farther use than what should be derived under it
  during his fourteen years; it would materially retard the progress of science and  
  the useful arts, and give a premium to those, who should be least prompt to
  communicate their discoveries."

  > But, you don't have to, and if you don't I can continue
    not buying it for as long as I want - but I can not just
    say, "I don't like your terms of use, I'll just pirate it
    anyway".

  If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive
  property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an
  individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the
  moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and 
  the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.
  ...
  That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the
  moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to
  have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them,
  like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any
  point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being,
  incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in
  nature, be a subject of property.

  1) "The Promoting of the Arts Argument"
      Wherein if we don't work to provide a significant
      amount of funding to artists, they won't be able to
      create expensive works.

  2) "The Consequentialist Argument"
      Wherein piracy must be bad, because it ultimately
      results in less income for artists.

  Fairness/cheating

  Authority/subversion

  Liberty/oppression

  Sanctity/degradation

  "Under the U. S. Constitution, the primary objective of copyright
  law is not to reward the author, but rather to secure for the public
  the benefits derived from the authors' labors. By giving authors an
  incentive to create, the public benefits in two ways: when the original
  expression is created and ... when the limited term ... expires and the
  creation is added to the public domain."

  "While one great object was, by holding out a reasonable reward to
  inventors, and giving them an exclusive right to their inventions for 
  a limited period, to stimulate the efforts of genius; the main object 
  was `to promote the progress of science and useful arts;' and this 
  could be done best, by giving the public at large a right to make, 
  construct, use, and vend the thing invented, at as early a period as 
  possible, having a due regard to the rights of the inventor. If an 
  inventor should be permitted to hold back from the knowledge of the 
  public the secrets of his invention; if he should for a long period 
  of years retain the monopoly, and make, and sell his invention publicly, 
  and thus gather the whole profits of it, relying upon his superior skill 
  and knowledge of the structure; and then, and then only, when the danger 
  of competition should force him to secure the exclusive right, he should
  be allowed to take out a patent, and thus exclude the public from any
  farther use than what should be derived under it during his fourteen
  years; it would materially retard the progress of science and the useful
  arts, and give a premium to those, who should be least prompt to
  communicate their discoveries."