Quote
When you "buy" your movie, you are not authorized to distribute it - even to one person at a time.

Which is exactly what I just said here:

Quote
If I buy a movie, I can not then set up a site to stream it for free to people, even if I only allow one person to stream it at a time. I also can not have a public showing of the movie without specifically paying for that right.

I'm not sure why you are repeating after me...

Quote
Libraries, on the other hand, have limited authorization in distributing copyrighted work, so long as it is returned.

I know they do. I never claimed they were breaking the law. I said that the concept is the same as what bootleggers [illegally] do; and the authorization for them to do it is arbitrary which makes the application of the law, contradictory. Reread what I said here again:

Quote
So downloading a movie is technically illegal. So what? Contradictory application of the laws (the beloved libraries vs. bootleggers for example) makes them null and void as an ethical or moral issue as far as I am concerned.

See, a library does its bootlegging activities legally and I never questioned the legality. So if what bootleggers do is not moral or ethical, then what the libraries do is also not moral or ethical; and vice-versa; because the actions and results regarding what bootleggers do and what libraries do, are fundamentally the same.

If anyone has a moral issue with bootleggers, they have to have a moral issue with libraries as well, or else their reasoning is internally contradictory ("selective reasoning"). If anyone tries to justify the laws pertaining to bootleggers (rather than admit that they are simply arbitrary) then they also have to admit that the same arguments that attempt to justify the laws against bootlegging are equally valid against the activities of libraries.

If you support the laws against bootlegging for any other reason beyond "well, it's the law" and at the same time, think that libraries do no wrong, then you have contradicted yourself, by default.