Most answers only touch the issue of piracy of scientific articles, but let me answer your more general question.<p>I believe that copyright is immoral, hence &quot;piracy&quot;, for me, requires no further moral justification.<p>Copyright is a racket, established by rent-seeking, mostly unproductive but powerful individuals&#x2F;corporations. It&#x27;s a cartel&#x2F;monopoly that discourages market competition, one of the most important inventions in history. The only connection between <i>copyright</i> and <i>theft</i> that I see is that by extending copyright retroactively, politicians (and their corporate sponsors) are stealing from the public domain. most importantly, copyright does little-to-nothing to encourage creativity and likely even prevents it. I see it as an obstacle to progress.<p>I wouldn&#x27;t necessarily oppose a <i>limited</i> copyright term (14-20 years seems plenty), but I completely oppose the current regime. However, I still often pay for media (after having pirated it and confirmed its value) to support the author(s).