Disregarding entirely the morality of the situation, which is immaterial to the statement in question. And disregarding 'making sure creators are reasonably compensated', which is almost tangential (since the earliest eras of man we've had media production, eg cave painting, and so consumers of media, as far as we know without monetary consideration).

Those who download material restricted by copyright from torrent sites, without an exception or license are nonetheless media 'consumers'. (i)

Copyright laws restrict the activity of these media consumers. (ii)

Restricting of media consumption leads, overall, to less media consumption. (iii)

Restricting an activity is to be 'anti' that activity. (iv)

Conclusion: copyright laws are anti media consumer. (v)

Where is your issue with the verity of this?

Murder is pro-civilian because it protects civilians, but copyright law doesn't protect media consumers.

Your plant analogy seems to be a suggestion that we're making an instance-to-class logical leap (fallacy of accident?). I don't see it, at which step do you think we did that? The argument at hand is more akin to "eating plants will kill some people".

I think clause (iii) is the obvious point at which one could challenge this line. You might contend that with no copyright law (2.i) their would be less media production (2.ii) and that this would lead to less consumers (2.iii). But I think this is obviously false, we'd have the same number of consumers but arguably poorer quality media to consume.

things aren't anti-consumer merely because individual instances of them carry consequences you don't like, and the vast majority of these laws don't do that

you seem to be confusing copyright protection for drm