Is piracy not a legitimate usage?
[1] https://cccc.ncte.org/cccc/committees/ip/ipreports/swartzcas...
Artists need food, shelter, and comfort just like everyone else. Those things cost money. Even an artist who feels a need to create needs enough funding to survive and get materials. Great works of art require funding. This is particularly true for things like movies and video games - you can have some smaller indie passion projects, but the kind of funding for AAA games or blockbuster movies doesn't just appear out of thin air - it requires a return on investment. If piracy was widespread and universally acceptable, this content would not exist.
Again, AAA games aren't a couple of passionate friends. George on the engine team doesn't want to spend 2 days hunting down an obscure collision detection bug if they're not getting paid.
Nowadays, I pirate games I paid for, so I don't have to run invasive and performance-degrading DRM software that makes assumptions about current computers that might not hold in the future.
It's about convenience and archival, and the creator's compensation.
Philosophically, it's also about protesting about the nature of private property and how in many cases nowadays, a "purchase" is in fact more akin to a lease.
I don't think this is accurate. There are plenty of legitimate critiques against intellectual property, for example: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intellectual-property/#Ge...
So yes, I have an inherent legal and moral right to others' work as I pay for it.
You have an inherent (natural) right to freedom of speech, which includes propagation of information. Intellectual property rights are an artificial construct that is created by society, effectively limiting freedom of speech and granting limited monopolies on distribution of certain information, ostensibly to achieve certain social goals. Both the goals themselves, and to what extent the arrangement is conductive to achieving them, is very much debatable.