If the freedom to communicate without fear of arbitrary interferance is a good thing (via the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights) and "piracy" cannot be realistic

If the freedom to communicate without fear of arbitrary interferance is a good thing (via the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights) and "piracy" cannot be realistically stopped without compromising that freedom (for example, by requiring ISPs to support large-scale surveillance, or by undemocratically influencing the government to adopt positions that are in conflict with social norms) then "piracy" is a good thing in at least the sense that the freedom to participate in "piracy" is a pre-requisite for that other good thing. I think privacy easily trumps non-commercial copyright so even when I'm feeling sympathetic to the pro-copyright arguement I am not willing to budge if it means things like more surveillance or increasing the fear that your are being watched by your government or some copyright enforcement company. I think that's a common enough feeling to explain why "Pirate" political parties have any success (despite many political systems being dominated by a small number of established parties, and the popular sentiment being that voting for anything else is throwing your vote away). As you have observed, that is quite a different arguement from the other possibility presented in the main article - that "piracy" (what everyone used to simply call sharing) is a good thing - which I am also receptive to. I mean, why bother having the Internet if not for the potential to distribute everything everywhere without saying "Please sir, I want some more"?