If I understand your position correctly, you feel that even if someone does not have $40 or would not have paid $40 for something that can be freely copied, it is both immoral and unethical to ignore the author's wishes and copy it anyway. Even though you as the author are unaffected by this action. You also feel that it's justifiable to seek out people who do this and tell them that they should not do this, i.e. how to live their life.
Is that an accurate summary? I am trying to respond to the strongest possible interpretation of what you're saying.
What is the difference between someone doing this, which is an illegal victimless crime, and recreational drug use, which is also an illegal victimless crime? Why is one immoral and unethical, but not the other? Furthermore, why is it justifiable to believe that it's an important right to be able to ingest whatever you want into your body as long as you're not harming anyone else? And are you sure the same argument doesn't apply to this case?
Is that an accurate summary? I am trying to respond to the strongest possible interpretation of what you're saying.
What is the difference between someone doing this, which is an illegal victimless crime, and recreational drug use, which is also an illegal victimless crime? Why is one immoral and unethical, but not the other? Furthermore, why is it justifiable to believe that it's an important right to be able to ingest whatever you want into your body as long as you're not harming anyone else? And are you sure the same argument doesn't apply to this case?