In theory, copyright law exists to create an incentive for people to engage in creative works. Copyright allows the creator to monopolize the distribution of their own work, and that monopoly makes the enormous amount of effort put into the work financially viable, in theory. If the creator has published the work, and is no longer distributing it, there is no monopoly for their copyright to protect. However they are using their copyright, it is not in the intended fashion and so it is ethically justifyable to bypass it.

That being said, in the modern context; the issue creatives face with monetization is not distribution, but discovery. There is so much content that being seen is the primary gatekeeper to financial success, so much so, that most creatives will legally give up their monopoly on distributing their work in exchange for promotion (publishing). In such an environment, piracy is effectively aiding the creator by spreading their reach, even if they are not directly paid. Their cultural relevance is much more important than that one sale. Despite this, the ownership of the properties ip is what holds value, and so the owners must keep up at least a token amount of resistance to piracy, to maintain their legal legitimacy.

You can see this reflected in the modern environment; easy, widespread piracy that is only occasionally resisted in the cheapest and most non-committal manner possible. Pirate whatever you want, and understand that you will occasionally be told to stop. However; that that request always comes with a wink.

#2 is super relevant to me. I hate having the ambiguity over whether I’m talking to the person or their robot butler.

I’m assuming “I don’t do politics” in this scenario is abstaining from debate, not abstaining from voting at all. Of course you go with the side that aligns best with your beliefs.

My point is, if you’re talking to someone, and all they’re doing is waiting to see which shibboleths you spit out to decide if they hate you or love you, then you aren’t going to get any meaningful discussion out of them.

Sometimes; when you hear somebodies political take, you can instantly tell they fall in one of the two extremely simplistic, easily marketable positions. When this happens, the easiest thing to do is politely decline to discuss politics with them, because you know they lack the nesessary context to understand your well thought out, nuanced position.

If you never encounter this problem, I suspect you may be in one of these two camps, and would strongly encourage you to think about your politics in detail. Do you know why you believe what you do?