To go a step further, no one is entitled to make a living through their own preferred means.

You want be an astronaut? You have to work your way through the program, competing with all the other candidates.

More people want to be authors than astronauts. The competition is fierce. The market is what it is, and piracy is part of it. If you can’t deal with that (financially, emotionally, whatever), then you probably should not be an author. Being an author does not entitle someone to make a living as an author.

Intellectual property laws are regulatory capture of published works. As we know, they don’t work particularly well, but people still want to make their living using that leverage. At the cost of everyone else in society.

My advice to those wishing to publish anything: do not expect anything in return.

> To go a step further, no one is entitled to make a living through their own preferred means.

People are entitled to sell their works under protections afforded by the law.

You are not entitled to take their work for free because you disagree with the laws.

I think intellectual property rights work astoundingly well. We have an incredibly rich, varied culture of published materials supporting vast legions of authors, artists, film makers, software developers, designers, publishers, playwrigts, actors, musicians, journalists, manufacturers, and on, and on.

Hum... Society is entitled healthy and well-supplied markets.

AFAIK, in our current situation that demands weaker copyrights (and patents too), but "the market is what it is" is a really bad framing. What, are you against any kind of change?