Because it's (most likely, depending on where OP lives) illegal. Distributing and copying other people's IP is illegal and unethical, rven if you have noble intentions after the fact.
(To be clear, i don't agree with the DRM implementation, I don't agree with O'Reillys recent change and I don't agree with an always online subscription service that is out of the price range of most people).
Illegal yes. Unethical? Very much still debated. It's really a fascinating debate once you go looking for quality arguments.
Lawrence Lessig (creator of Creative Commons) has a couple of great keynotes, and books, setting the tone for the battle ground.
Benklers Wealth of Networks is another great resource covering similar topics.
Then you have the clear opposition variants such as Stallmans arguments. The book Against Monopoly is also a good read on this angle (this one is more about patents than copyright though)
I don't recall the source right now, but there is also this fascinating history of copyright in Europe and the statue of Anne which, ostensibly, was mostly about censorship and not at all about authors rights or ability make a living.
First step is to recognize that IP is a propaganda term, designed to confuse issues and appeal to an entirely different set of laws and moral frameworks. So if you use this term, know that you've been successfully manipulated by the other side of the debate.
> First step is to recognize that IP is a propaganda term, designed to confuse issues and appeal to an entirely different set of laws and moral frameworks.
Exactly.
BTW, equating non-profit copyright infringement with attacking ships also might be some kind of propaganda.
(To be clear, i don't agree with the DRM implementation, I don't agree with O'Reillys recent change and I don't agree with an always online subscription service that is out of the price range of most people).