@Slaz The thing is human ethics vary by person. No two people have the same ethics set. Supposedly you have similar culture sets to those around you (family and ideally community and nation) but that isn't guaranteed and is pretty unrealistic even though we cling to the notion. I found that out the hard way when I came out to my folks.

However laws are universal (within the territory that they apply to of course) and are a the standard by which we are supposed to mold our ethics. Of course they aren't in fallible as laws are often designed after a dominate ethics set (see Jim Crow laws in the US) but in an ideal world they are our limitations to keep us from letting our morals harm others in some fashion (including financially).

Hence why I said if you can live with what you do or not is your business but it doesn't change the nature of what you are doing. If you break the law you break the law. People try to pretend like those that point that out are making a false equivalency most of the time though. That's why all the tu quoque responses start popping up. No you don't have to be perfect to acknowledge that something is wrong, as you are just stating a fact. I will easily tell a pirate that piracy is wrong from a legal perspective and I just need a patch and a pegleg at this point (or at least I did). I don't care about a persons morals (in general) because I already know they are different from mine. So long as your morals don't cause physical, emotional, mental or legal harm to others you can feel whatever you want about something. So nothing I've said argues from a moral perspective at all.

As for the people making the whole preservation arguments not being able to find a viable consumer version of a product doesn't entitle you to a copy of it and doesn't absolve you of wrong doing. Again, if you are willing to take the risk and can live with it that is on you. However don't get mad when people point out what you are doing is legally wrong.