Fair use

Steeple-fingered extracts from the apparently authorless Review of the Copyright Act 1994: MBIE's approach to policy development, appended:

By 'copyright works' we mean works that copyright subsists in, as opposed to the copyright itself, which transcends all of the works it subsists in. For example, you can legally own a Picasso drawing without owning copyright in the drawing. Here, the copyright work is the drawing.

Also, if you photograph the Picasso drawing, lock it in a safe and then copyright the reproduction, you will have total control over viewing the original work, which is as advantageous as owning its copyright.

Creators may form a close personal bond with their work and view it as an extension of their identity. This sentimental relationship between creator and the work is easily threatened by a lack of control over the works' use by others.

To quantify this "sentimental relationship", rip off a Rolling Stones song and count the number of zeroes in the legal settlement.

While we are mindful of the limitations of copyright policy as a means to financially support creators ... we have concluded that it would not be just or in the spirit of international human rights law to view copyright as concerned with their material interests only so far as is necessary to induce creativity that would not otherwise occur.

So as long as Walt Disney remains creatively induced to continue making movies, it's cool to torrent The Mandalorian.

Creative professionals are quoted in A profile of Creative Professionals on the fulfilment they get from their work, with one of them saying: "I love my work and feel very privileged that I can work at something I love and believe in, even if the rewards are predominantly not monetary."

Nurses and teachers also say that. And journalists. And ...