To play the devil's advocate. Why not though? The "because it's illegal" I can understand.
But if one's to argue it's also "immoral", then this pressuposses a whole complicated ethics based on a human invention like "copyright", which I'm not sure why people need to respect.
The sad fact is that we don't live in such a world, so some form of compensation for authors is necessary, if you want them to keep doing what they are doing. Copyright isn't the only model, but I don't see any practical way to pivot back to a patronage model, especially for content which isn't considered high art. So, I don't think it is fair that one should be paid for making cars, but not be paid for making software, since both consume money to produce. The fact that software doesn't consume (much) money to produce more units after one is produced means that the model of compensation may be different, but I don't think it means there should be no compensation at all. It is easy to go too far in the other direction (e.g. the behavior of record companies and movie studios, who exploit the real authors), but I don't think that invalidates the concept entirely.
So no more big bugdet commercial BS endlessly re-run and re-sold on DVDs and such. Art would be created by people really passionate for it. From my point of view, that would be progress. Of course some people would lament not having Transformers 3 -- but then again, some people would lament anything and everything, including bad things. The key question is: is it better in aggregate?
Now, for other stuff, like software, that might indeed be an issue. I'm assuming here that "pro" software is a good thing (more features, higher quality), where "pro art" is a bad thing (more commercialized crap).
For example, the direction Patreon and Kickstarter are taking the indie media scene is very encouraging, but these little fish would be even more screwed if copyright completely evaporated.
It's possible to be passionate about your craft and spend money on it and want to make money at it. I would be willing to bet that most of the people who worked on Transformers 3 were actually quite passionate. Then again, so are Uwe Boll and Stephanie Meyer. Mainstream familiarity breeds contempt in hispters and elitists but it's not necessarily the case that there is an inverse relationship between the scale of distribution and artistic quality. You can find good, high budget commercial fare as well as plenty of garbage on the indie side of any creative industry.
Making an exemption for software development doesn't really make sense either. Surely, if artists need to starve for the sake of their work then programmers do as well?
In a world where they hadn't been created, I would be strictly worse off. Even if I could enjoy low-budget "artsy" movies.
Probably in Hungarian without subtitles, for maximum authenticity.
That's how art happens even now.
I suspect much pirating is rooted in entitlement, and the moralizing comes after.
Sometimes no, it's not.
Just this morning I was talking with TeMPOraL and we were recalling how the software market looked like in Poland in the nineties (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10397694). My "walk down to the store" then would have to be to another country, a thousand kilometers or so; through two or three national borders. It's not that I didn't want to pay with what little money I had, it's just that there was no one who wanted to take my money (besides "pirates", of course).
This is the context for my statement above. Of course, it's rarely that bad nowadays, but it still happens. And how hard getting the content has to be for you to consider it not available? There being physically not one "legal" copy of Windows in the entire country (been there)? Is it enough for the nearest place offering content to be a thousand kilometers away? 500km? 200km? (and no, nobody wanted to even ship it via snail mail, because uncertain laws and such).
As for entitlement... well, that's trickier and I don't want to go there. I can only say that both sides of this argument have interesting and convincing arguments.
That doesn't seem quite right to me.
Does the content creator (since there would be no 'owner' without copyright) have any say over the use or distribution? I think of all those rock stars that have had politicians misappropriate their songs and then asked them to stop using them over the years. I wonder what that felt like, you wrote this hit song that was powerful and evoked emotion and then someone you are ideologically opposed to tried to use it for their purpose.
You've got the "rights" the wrong way around - it's not that people have the right to see the boudoir photos, it's that people have the right to copy photos they own, and the husband/wife are not allowed to infringe on that right.
Basically, it's not "thou shalt not kill", rather than "right to life", although people implicitly do have the right to copy.
The exception being, obviously, copyright - which is a temporary state-sanctioned monopoly on the right to copy your works (in other words, you're temporarily the sole holder of the copy right), for the sake of producing more artistic works for the general public.