You and I have much different takes on what feels good.
I think virtue is good for us and thus "feels good", because that has been my experience.
I think following laws that aren't inherently unjust is virtuous. The only question is if these laws are unjust or not. (In this case I guess we're just talking about the laws of paying for goods.)
> regressive companies trying to put the Internet back in the bottle, destroy net neutrality, push us into proprietary platforms, divide online communities based on geographic location, surveil our behavior, etc
This is too vague to be compelling. At the end of the day, you are paying for content that was created by human beings. Is there a middle man? Yes. Would it be better without the middle man? Also yes. Is there an alternative? Only if we are okay with not paying the creators that put in the work to make the content. I am no longer okay with that.
For me, at the end of the day, your argument is at best pointing out a less than ideal economic system and at worst it is justifying viscous behavior that, taken to its limit, can be used to justify virtually any kind of illegal behavior.
Less than ideal != unjust.
My problem isn't based on the overall economic system itself (which has been roughly in place for thousands of years), but rather with the colonization and locking down of cyberspace by that economic system. Just a few decades ago, we had a blank slate wherein we could invent new structures and norms. Now business keeps hammering on cyberspace to make it conform to the shape of the world it already conquered. As someone who enjoyed the frontier, and dreamed of what could be built, I cannot accept that.
The "creators" that are being paid less are the large dinosaur businesses that insist on ironclad copyright and control - indies have been rolling with the punches and adapting. From what I've seen, the main trend decompensating actual creatives in the movie industry is offshoring. The laws have been bought such that businesses can directly screw over human beings without a qualm, but yet us humans are supposed to feel bad about reducing the businesses' income, in hope the businesses might harm the humans slightly less? I don't buy it.
But, if there's no alternative to supporting creators (directors, actors, camera ops, costuming, set dec, etc) then I'm going to keep supporting them the standard way today.
But following the existing law doesn't mean that I can't also explore, create, advocate for _new_ technology that makes cutting out the middle man more feasible. Or heck, supporting new legislation that makes things better too.
I just don't believe that this current system is fundamentally evil, but rather just "less than great". Therefore I can't justify breaking the law in this case.
