Your question is a loaded question founded on a false premise that the author of the content has an innate right to its viewership. There is no such innate right.
Also, the argument that you made elsewhere about "damages" is nonsense because there is no damage from someone viewing what they were never going to pay for anyway, and there also is no deprivation.
> Your question is a loaded question
It is not. Abolishing copyright completely, as the parent seems to desire, implies free access to songs, books, movies.
> a false premise that the author of the content has an innate right to its viewership
If you pose it this way: can't creators decide who gets access to their creations? Is it not inherently theirs? What's the difference with e.g. a piece of bread?
> there is no damage ...
So it's legal to steal stuff that you were never going to buy anyway?
> can't creators decide who gets access to their creations?
If it's on their physical property.
> Is it not inherently theirs?
No. For example, a creator of a song does not own my hard drive.
> What's the difference with e.g. a piece of bread?
Operating system calls used in copying data locally and sending/receiving network data locally/remotely fail on pieces of bread, but don't on a series of bits that when given to an .mp3 player make sound.
> So it's legal to steal stuff that you were never going to buy anyway?
Saying somethng is stealing X is a false premise if the owner is not deprived of X. Saying X is depriving Y of future profits is false unless you know for a fact that X was going buy anything from Y.