Yes, of course it's easier to pirate it. The problem is that its unethical (and illegal). That you find it inconvenient to pay for things you want is not a valid justification.
There is no problem, just pirate it.
> its unethical (and illegal)
I guess I'll just keep doing it then, and someone else can keep crying about it on orange computer reddit website
For who?
The article is basically a list of examples of how companies that offer legal options often use unethical business practices (sometimes to the point where they should be illegal).
I don't agree with all of their examples, such as conflating removing access to a purchased title with removing a title from a streaming service, but I can certainly understand why people are frustrated.
Also consider that the rights to works aren't necessarily held by their creators.
If you want artists to make a living, you need to end shareholder capitalism, not reinforce it.
As a very flattened retelling of history, it was only with the boomers that we reached the tipping point on how people started to think about copyright (Copyright != Attributed Authorship). With them, a majority started to believe in a world where the human history they consumed was a gift from the past, and that what they themselves create must be bought by future generations.
I'm not saying I have answers on how to build a better system, but the current one is neither ethical nor ideal - It's just creating (taxable) markets so business and gov is on board. The certainty with which people claim this setup provides great value to society is bullshit. The only certainty is that there are big businesses with vested interests and small creators who think their only ticket to sustainable income is their copyright (and having the --option-- requirement to sell it entirely, sublicense and all, to YouTube or Amazon).
Something that legislation about copyright usually does get right.
This Santa Claus version of reality is exactly the kind of mainstream ignorance I was complaining about.
I honestly just don't know what your are trying to say and what it has to do with boomers. Are you just talking about physical media copying of books, CDs, DVDs, etc.?
Today any kids uploading their YT video thinks of their own copyright. This explanation of copyright as "creator protection" is a story much younger than copyright itself. Its incongruent with history or how its used today >99.99% of the time.
Imagine how many new remixes and takes on music and films we could have if you didn't have to worry about a corp breathing down your neck if your chords are a bit too similar to something from 50 years ago.
Have a look at Chinese factories borrowing manufacturing processes from each other in order to work more efficiently. They don't give a shit that someone else is using their process, since wanting to protect that and not having everybody else be able to use it is literally backwards thinking (towards the past!).
Actual important research, like medical stuff and whatnot, should be government funded either way. Even the US does this, did it more in the past, and it was good work.
It’s reasonable to not want to do that, even if it’s not the most severe kind of unethical or illegal act.
Sharing is caring. If I can share my money with creators I go for it every single time, especially when these creators are simply making my life better with their art.
It's more complex than "want stuff for free". Usually I hate free stuff as they cost in time or worse.
That problem is largely irrelevant to copyright infringement. All copyright infringement (within a rounding error, exceptions obviously exist) doesn't actually hurt plucky artists from whom starvation is a real threat. Copyright infringement is largely a problem for corps who lose out on some money (money which almost certainly doesn't drip down to the actual artists).
Especially for people outside of the US, licencing and region locks can make it extremely technically difficult to source and play a genuine piece of media - whereas the pirate one takes 3 clicks.