I'm a fan of Kant's philosophy, in some ways similar to Plato's in the question of absolute morality. If the world was fair, I'd be the perfect moral imperative citizen, and I'm not just saying that, I do have a very strong moral core when I feel like I'm dealing with a fair actor. But when someone like Amazon or Disney act the way they do, in a predatory, abusive, even psychopathic way, I just don't feel any moral obligation towards them. The world isn't fair, and if we act with fairness and decorum towards unfair actors, it will only lead to exploitation of our fairness and the continuous perpetuation of bad actions. I remember this quote from my political philosophy class, it went something like "Most people aren't evil but the inaction of the majority allows evil to be perpetuated." It wasn't a quote by a philosopher but just the lecturer summing up a class. If only I could remember which philosopher this quote was connected to... I think Socrates and his conversation with Crito?

Those are good points, philosophically speaking I agree. I also like that you mentioned Ancient Greek philosophers. Interestingly enough, I usually tend to lean towards Plato's worldview, and I'm generally not a big fan of Aristotle. In other words, I like to talk about principles and ideas rather than real consequences. But it is hard to disconnect oneself from the real data this way, especially when companies like Disney, or even Netflix, and don't even get me started on Amazon, have so many skeletons in their closets. Amazon doesn't pay their warehouse employees enough and doesn't give them long enough breaks for them to even use the bathroom and they have to pee in bottles. Disney are copyright law abusers and unethical in other ways, like mistreating and underpaying their Disneyland cast members. So I sure as hell don't feel morally obligated to support these businesses, y'know what I mean?

I agree, Wikipedia can be a great starting point. A lot of articles about certain topics go into great detail but don't go over the situation as a whole, so if you only read them you might end up missing the forest for the trees.

That's an interesting analogy, I like it. You're right, it's basically using a service that you're expected to pay for.
That said, coming back to the data @bethorien mentioned, most people who pirate wouldn't pay for the service anyway, if they weren't able to pirate. It's just entertainment, it's not necessary for their life. Meanwhile public transport is needed, so if it's well regulated and checked, people who would think about not paying their fare would just resort to paying it, because they need to use it anyway.
So yes philosophically speaking you're right but when we look at the real data, it shows that piracy isn't this big nasty business that's costing industries billions. As I said, it might even be beneficial.

There is evidence that pirating doesn't hurt the industry, it can actually help boost it. For instance, video game piracy often serves as a sort of "demo" market - since game demos aren't really a thing anymore, a person will pirate a game to try it out, or just to see if their PC can run it well enough, and eventually purchase it. If they didn't have the pirated version, they might not have tried and therefore bought the game at all. So yes while pirating is technically illegal there is data that shows it's actually beneficial for the industry. I'd assume it works in a similar way with shows. Watch an episode or two to see if you like it and then subscribe to the service.
A lot of things are technically illegal, including jaywalking. But imo if it doesn't hurt anyone, we shouldn't condemn it so harshly. And data says piracy doesn't really hurt anyone.

"Just pick him up and squish him tight to your body"

I wonder if we'll ever need to ban AI like they did in Mass Effect to achieve a better future

Ok this thread is now becoming the plot of Only Lovers Left Alive haha

Mozenputtel

It seems I have as well, lol.