a larger disappointment. Still no moral component, though. Likewise the opposite: if you obey copyright law, it's because you ultimately benefit from doing so -- that's the whole reason for it to exist. I don't think I'd characterize enlightened self interest as affirmatively moral, though. Only if pressed would I say that there is any moral aspect to copyright, and that in such a case, it is pirates who are the moral actors (well, who can be, at any rate). This is because it surely must be more moral to share knowledge that is meant to be shared (as in the case of a work that is published or intended to be published) than it is to lock it up so as to grant access only to those who can pay for the privilege. After all, wouldn't our ideal world be one in which everyone had the free use of all the world's published knowledge -- a magnificent personal library for each and every one of us? Pirates who merely substitute themselves for a gatekeeper and charge for pirated copies wouldn't qualify as being moral here (unless we've got graduations, since their price is probably lower), but plenty of people are happy to give things away, without any sort of compensation, not even using ads, or donations, or payments in kind, or what have you. If there absolutely must be a moral aspect to copyright, which I don't think that there is, then surely these people have the better claim