I'm very sorry you see things this way.

As I've already mentioned, I'm not in favor of piracy for my not being in favor of conflicts between people. I wouldn't impose my convictions to others that's why I would not illegally copy any software. I'll just don't buy nor use those stuffs.

People who think as I do, tend to always prefer using open-source software, just for the same reasons that some people understand that a bridge, a street lamp or a road is public interest, and that it should therefore be public property.

Would it be OK for you if, walking by night along a street, a policeman would come to you and ask for some payment against the use of lamps that enlighten your path, or would require that you put a blindfold if you don't want to pay ?

As far as my general contribution for society is concerned, as a matter of fact I've already financially donated to open source community several times. No huge amounts, but certainly comparable to what I would have paid if those stuffs were commercial. But once again this is a digression and personal attack. This should be irrelevant in a debate.

But your point is quite interesting, though. It's quite a funny idea that everyone should have some legitimacy to use services provided by society, depending of each individual contribution for society. People who have never work in public construction shouldn't be allowed to use a road, and more generally people who have never paid any tax should not be allowed to use any public service. Children, for instance, should be considered as useless people and should therefore be put in jail. This is absurd.

If you were to evaluate the ratio between lifetime individual contribution to society and what everybody receives from this same society from his birth to his death, you would certainly realize that for an vast majority of people, this ratio is absolutely tiny.