No, it isn't. It doesn't matter how big or small the artist is, or the owner of said item if we aren't talking music, the owner has put work into the product and makes a living off of selling it. People downloading things for free are wrong. I myself buy albums, and I have an itunes subscription so at least a bit of my money goes to the artists per renewal. But this is pushing it really. If I had more money I would buy each album (i'm 15 so I can't) to show my support for the music.
Although I agree, I feel like arguing the opposite lol...cause why not? Do know, this argument is going to be some intense load of bull.
The act in question is, more or less, asking whether or not theft is immoral when the item stolen is digital. I would say no, and this is why:
The act of theft, in non digital items, is deemed as wrong by society for two reasons: the product itself is deprived of the owner without payment and the payment itself is deprived of the seller. Were I to steal the car, I am both depriving them of the car itself and the payment of the car. The point is, they now have less of it to sell and are not being compensated for it.
However, when we look at the digital world, these are easily excused. It does not cost anything to reproduce digital copies. For example, youtube essentially creates millions of "digital copies" of a song with every view. It does not cost them much in the way of doing this. Let me take an analogy
You have the artist (let's say Taylor Swift) who spends time and money producing an album. That album is then uploaded to a pirating site and others download it for free. Here I will be assuming that the downloaders could not afford to buy it outright and, even if they could, would not have downloaded it whatsoever had the free, pirated version not been available. What we see here is that the amount of the item is not deprived of Taylor Swift, as she has an unlimited amount of digital copies, nor is she deprived of profits since the piraters in question would not have bought the album had the pirated version not been available. Taylor suffers no loss whatsoever and the piraters receive pleasure from the album. Essentially, what we see here, is a total increase in pleasure, with no justified feelings of pain felt by another party (unless they didn't like the album...but thats another matter
)
Now, I would concede that were the individuals capable of buying it outright and were going to buy the album even if there was no free version available, then that would be immoral as they are depriving Taylor of the profits she would have had.