I do not believe that I do or do not have the right to download a movie I couldn't find elsewhere, because I believe that "right" is a meaningless word in this context (the context being colloquial/moral, of course - not legal). This arises when an object becomes "hyper-available", as most digital content is - i.e. near-zero reproduction/distribution cost/friction. I wouldn't say, "I have a right to pick this flower from of a field of wildflowers", or "I have a right to sip water from this waterfall", because the framing is nonsensical. "Right" is simply a too-dramatic word for what is actually being described.
It would be like if people tried to restrict the functionality of Star Trek matter replicators for entertainment purposes. It makes sense economically for those individuals, but it's fallacious in a "common sense" context.
You do believe you have a right because you do so contrary to law. You can frame your actions as moral and rationalize your lawbreaking all you want, but you’re still breaking the law. Imagine if everyone acted this way? I can get metaphysical about all kinds of things I’d like to do contrary to the law, and create all kinds of rationalizations like “no one is hurt by my actions”. But that’s not quite true because if everyone acted in such a way, society would break down. At the end of the day it seems like you’re just rationalizing selfishness.
I imagine paid services may improve to compete. Regardless, the actual implication is fallacious. "One should only do what would cause no harm if every human did it" is not only unrealistic, but moot as long as not everybody is actually doing it. There's no intrinsic [im]morality in it.
You're still conflating morality with legality. Piracy being illegal has no basis on whether it's moral.
> Imagine if everyone acted this way?
This is basically deontology by Immanuel Kant. Not everyone is a Kantian though, so this is why you see a clash of your personal ethics with those of non-Kantians. I don't think you're going to convince anyone through messages on HN (similarly those who are non-Kantians will not convince you, as you are seeing in your replies), just as I would not be able to convince an anti-abortionist about the opposite views.
These ethical frameworks are so basal to our belief structures that if one disagree with someone else on these grounds, it is basically irreconcilable.
It would be like if people tried to restrict the functionality of Star Trek matter replicators for entertainment purposes. It makes sense economically for those individuals, but it's fallacious in a "common sense" context.