No, I'm trying to point out how the above two arguments, which seem to be quite prevalent on the Internet, are too simple and are generally used to shut out debate instead of doing anything useful. Oh, I know there are definitely cogent, nuanced arguments against piracy. But it's been my experience that there are way too many Internet commenters who use the two ahem "straw men" I pointed above, and I was wondering whether we could do anything about those people, because as you mentioned, they are hurting the side that argues in favour of intellectual property by not actually letting anyone talk about the issue. I don't believe in using arguments like that. They're ad-hominem and altogether too dismissive of the humanity of the other arguers. However, this is simply a form of "if you say anything to the contrary, you are simply trying to excuse away your own thefts." Your essay would be just as cogent if this line were omitted. That being said, if there were something I would "own up" to, it would be phrased as such: I infringe copyrights. Not just by making unauthorized copies of creative works, but also by creating unauthorized derivative works. So just to be clear, are you denying the "anti-piracy" side their argument on grounds of moral simplicity?
In light of all that, it looks like you've oversimplified the argument a few shades. I've seen very few people other than, I dunno, ad men for "The 20" portion of my movie theater experience ever argue that "stealing is stealing, period." I've seen plenty more people supply the below arguments, pro and con. Don't dismiss one side of the argument based on (don't say it don't say it I'm gonna say it) strawman.
So quit and stop whining about it.
Or else, jesus, have the stones to own up to what you're doing rather than trying to snake your way out of culpability.
If I sound like I'm saying something along the lines of "if you say anything to the contrary, you are simply trying to exuse away your own thefts," it's because within this particular framework, that's a valid response to the question as posed. In the arena of filesharing, "can we refute stealing is stealing?" In short, no. But here's what you can do: you can re-frame the debate. There's a reason for this. Me? It's in my marked interest, as it is for anybody who works within and stands to benefit from the current system, to keep the debate firmly on grounds of morality. Because, barring a change to the system, it's not only an extremely easy argument to make, but it represents the last available appeal to people who would otherwise bypass that system entirely at the expense of a few distant actors. You can get this by means that lie outside of my preferred marketplace, but if you do, you are effecting my bottom line. That's an easy and potentially powerful argument. You're going to have a hard time refuting it, too. On the other hand, if you as a file-sharer take up the argument on practical grounds, your job becomes easier: "whether or not my actions are moral is moot; available technology allows me to assign lower monetary value to the stuff I want. The onus doesn't fall on me to ignore available tools, it falls on the market to correct for the presence of those tools." Then again, I can counter (and already have) with the argument others have taken up in other IP arenas. Sure, you can leverage available tools to take my IP, and there's nothing I can do about it. But if there's no money in it for me, I'll stop producing. That's a market correction. Anyhow, the question about "how to counter the morality argument" seems a bit off the mark, as you're looking to fight a very uneven fight. Which is why you as a consumer are better off reverting to practical arguments, as others have done. But then I'm not sure that road takes you anywhere you necessarily want to go, either.Every argument that the side against copyright has seems to be perpetually bogged down in definitions and assumptions and challenging paradigms
That's also a valid answer to the original question - "You really can't". I mean, perhaps it's not the most useful of answers by itself, but with your added explanation about the course of action people like us should be taking, it does still contribute to the discussion. It means that people like us will just have to keep working at changing that system - to show consumers and creators alike that you can still be compensated for producing content without copyright. One of the reasons I asked about this problem in the first place is because framing the copyright debate in terms of morality is a political move as much as it is a rhetorical one. Somebody who espoused the above argument would be summarily dismissed by copyright proponents as a selfish, amoral sociopath. On the other hand, as a creator who believes in the culture of sharing and remixing, I'd say that adopting the existing copyright system for small periods of time on some of my own works would be favoring pragmatics over morality on my own part. There's a reason for this. Me? It's in my marked interest, as it is for anybody who works within and stands to benefit from the current system, to keep the debate firmly on grounds of morality. Because, barring a change to the system, it's not only an extremely easy argument to make, but it represents the last available appeal to people who would otherwise bypass that system entirely at the expense of a few distant actors.
You're going to have a hard time refuting it, too. On the other hand, if you as a file-sharer take up the argument on practical grounds, your job becomes easier: "whether or not my actions are moral is moot; available technology allows me to assign lower monetary value to the stuff I want. The onus doesn't fall on me to ignore available tools, it falls on the market to correct for the presence of those tools."