I am really curious about this point of view. Many of my friends and colleagues share it. Do you really see no issue with downloading something for free if it isn't provided to you in a way you can pay for and consume that you prefer? Are you okay that you are not paying for something that really does take a large amount of money to create?

Like I said, I'd prefer to pay for what I consume. I'm not ok with paying cable companies extortionate fees simply because they were able to develop a semi-monopoly on content distribution while they provide painfully poor service and actively work to avoid adapting to the fact that the internet has drastically reduced distribution costs. Shows that are available one day later on Amazon/Hulu or the like, I wait a day and purchase, so it's actually a lot more uncommon than you think that I pirate shows (that said, I'd pay more in some cases to be able to purchase the show when it airs - for events like Breaking Bad). HBOGo, WatchESPN, Showtime anywhere - they built a system that allows shared accounts explicitly, so there is no guilt on my part for not paying for a cable subscription just to get those channels, and if those companies wanted to enforce a policy of individual accounts, I'd happily pay for a subscription to just those channels.

I realize some of this is not perfectly logical and is contradictory. However, I see it as a broken system, with entrenched players acting poorly, and the best way to force adaptation is to pay when they offer me a way to and not pay when they don't. My hope is that this incentivizes the power players to move towards a system where all content is available for purchase should someone want to purchase it (which, given the minimal barriers to uploading copyrighted content, seems like they should have embraced long ago - especially as companies like Netflix and Amazon monitor pirated content to determine their targets).