No, it would not be 'cool', in any sense. It is not engaging with the matter in an intelligent way. There is a problem here, but it is not 'piracy'. It is that

No, it would not be 'cool', in any sense. It is not engaging with the matter in an intelligent way. There is a problem here, but it is not 'piracy'. It is that the laws, and consequent ways of doing business, don't work properly when everyone has the ability to copy any information. IP laws are there to serve the public overall. That they increase revenue for creators is not the end, only the means. The end is to support a level of production that the public would want. The laws do not represent any deeper moral principle -- quite the opposite: we want information to be accessible, and widely communicated. IP, at the essence of its definition, is a compromise of two conflicting aims. It is evaluated purely pragmatically: that the overall good done is hoped better than the harm. But the circumstances have changed greatly. Significant enforcement is now neither practical nor desirable. The internet gives everyone the means to share information; why should these laws obstruct the public from realising this new benefit? The laws are supposed to serve the public after all. Ultimately our laws and commercial arrangements must do two things: express our moral principles, and be effective and practical. The moral aims are that we should support and improve both sharing and production -- these are not really antagonistic as IP pretends, they are mutually reinforcing. And we need to achieve that accounting for real, current, and likely future circumstances. Simply saying 'Piracy is theft' is going backwards not forwards. If 'piracy' forces everyone to pay attention and do something to change things, it is doing some good. IP is effectively a monopoly, that large corporations have repeatedly ramped up for their own benefit, despite whatever detriment to anyone else. Do you really believe they would loosen that grip voluntarily?