Before I say this, let me just say this is a very quick response and I don't necessarily expect that you'll interpret it the way I intend it to be read. With that in mind, you may misinterpret away without jumping down my throat too much.
I don't intend this to mean what you interpret--only what I intend, which is up to you to realize since my words are imperfect and there's not always time to perfect them.
To me the notion of controlling information and protecting certain industries' / business' interests or trying to put tape over the mouths of those saying things that we don't agree with by means of legislation, law enforcement, and penalties is, among other things, an absurd, cumbersome strain on a very large number of people, communities, businesses, and the legal system itself, and is ultimately useless in the grand scheme of things even though a great deal of folks currently profit from and depend on these laws.
If you don't work for free, why would you expect someone else to?
There is the notion that information should be "free and legal" which is gaining momentum in the U.S. and internationally. What this means is wide open to interpretation. The basis for this movement is that free and legal access to information is a fundamental human need that exceeds any company's or artists' needs. ( I won't argue or demonstrate the reason for this in detail here because that debate is going on in a lot of other places. ) ... Basically, "we" made decisions ( spanning many, many decades or even centuries ) to give corporations and industries special privileges to control info for profit. Copyrights, patents, trademarks, etc. Whether the direction of such public policies have fairly benefitted society is questionable. Whether or not jobs are lost due to piracy is irrelevant. The whole strategy of helping a handful of folks at the expense of what could be viewed as "information rights of the public", is not in everyone's interest. And I don't say this lightly because I know what it's like to be laid off and I am
definitely not an advocate of working for free! Not that we live in a perfectly fair world that works out for everyone, but is not the opportunity for jobs in the open source world burgeoning? If not now, it seems like it could, and I know for a fact a rapidly growing amount of programming work now is all self-employed, gig-based, creativity type stuff, and you don't even need a college degree to get paid $ 50 - $ 300 an hour. Posting on stack overflow and a good repertoire can go a long way--even so far as to provide job security beyond what any one corporation can offer you as a permanent, direct employee. And as for artists, art should be made for art not money, IMHO, and I come from a large family of professional artists and musicians. And I'm a silicon valley professional and I know a lot of inventors, corporate and individuals, and am very familiar with the value that for-profit ventures place on intellectual property.
And there's this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=3bxcc3SM_KA
And many, many other problems.
The real question is why should you pay and not be able to do whatever you want with the software?
When I buy a computer I can change the hardware, the OS,... When I buy a TV I can decide how to use it, when I buy a car I can change the pieces, the oil, the tires...
SO why should I pay for a software and not be able to modify it to fix my needs?
And that's exactly right. Special interest groups don't want you have that kind of freedom. They just want you to need them. There is no real problem that requires us to pay for info. Special interest groups made up that "problem" and for some reason "we" all went with it. ( Nobody asked me, they just did it before I was born, hence this response now. ) Why should certain groups be more entitled to control of information than others? Just because they want to make money isn't sufficient justification to create a massive system of info control at taxpayer expense. If money is the concern then what about the pocketbooks of the rest of the citizens? There is a real imbalance of "informational power" because corporations do not represent the public at large, and if the public at large is ok with that, then... oh my, what does the public have going for them in the end except complete tyranny? I mean, isn't the whole reason for Linux and open-source to escape the tyranny of closed-source monopolies that abundantly serve the interests of a mere few? I mean, if Linux Mint became so good as to appeal to absolutely every user and beat Windows out of the competition forever it's hard to imagine no one would lose their job @ M$, right? The discussion of corporatized tyranny due to the exclusive control of info we allow them to harness at the expense of public rights is no small or quiet one. Quite the stir going on. If you really stop and think about it you may find that such control of mere ideas is insane.
The "land of the free", eh?
The U.S. is the "land of the free" no more than what its citizens and other forces have made it. It should perhaps be "land of the freer" or "freest" but freedom is not really a matter of geographical boundary as it is one's status in terms of power, wealth, family, etc. If you own a big bank in Europe that you inherited from your 800-year-old family dynasty you are freer than most people on the planet. Terms like "land of the free" are visionary at best. A vision yet to be created for certain; there are countless millions of atrocities occurring in the U.S. every year that defy this vision. Freedom is an illusion anyway. If you are "free" from one thing then you are bound to another, such as the responsibility of maintaining the "freedom" you have. You pay for what you get, no matter what it is.
As far as "wrong" or "right" goes, only you can weigh what's harmful to whom and how much, assuming your life experience is deep enough to qualify you to make that assessment. If society decides to give non-personal entities or special groups more power than people at large then it must own the damage ( oppression ) that inevitably ensues.
You just have to search a bit to find it. Hollywood is pure evil 
when I visited a Wal-Mart in Oakland to see a police station built into the Wal-Mart itself. The vibe was edgy! Cameras everywhere, like a prison. In Sacramento they're sweeping up homeless people in vans and detaining them in facilities outside the city, complete with barbed wire fences. Not joking. All kinds of awful problems in Cali. Water...don't get me started on that! 