Actually it's not.

I'm not sure how many time I need to write this. Hopefully I can get my point across. My point is this.

If someone creates something good enough for you to steal and listen to over and over again and keep on your laptop then the argument that it sucks doesn't fly, because you wouldn't steal something you don't want or need.

If the creator makes something you want and asks for compensation, you need to pay.

If someone's music sucked you wouldn't listen to it and it wouldn't be in your media device.
If software sucked, you wouldn't spend the time to download it and use it on occasion and in many cases every day.

People can make fun of Microsoft all day, long, bad code, evil company, the devil incarnate, whatever. But they use it all day long and all day long they're saying, this software is good because I depend on it. Don't like it, don't use it and theft would not be necessary.

BINGO. And by stealing it you're saying you want what they're selling. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand.

So? And if they wanted to promote their songs by giving it away for free they would have, but they didn't. And no, not all artist have videos, concerts, tours and endorsements. The big ones? Sure. The smaller ones? no.

By the way, some music artists have to use alternate revenue streams precisely because they can't make money off of music sales. Ever think about that?

I don't disagree, but that wasn't my point. They may not be able to "live off of their music" but what gives you the right to steal from them and prevent them from trying?