Putting analogies aside, as everyone seems to focus on the analogy rather than the actual topic:
Person A made something and is granting access to their creation subject to certain conditions. Person B finds a way to access the creation while circumventing the creators conditions. This is clearly wrong.
Some conditions are abusive. Try selling a non-perishable product in the EU with the condition that you provide less than two years of warranty and you can have a court telling you that.
Of course, this particular conditions are legal, but that doesn't mean they're not abusive too.
Usually you can set whatever conditions you like as long as they don't contradict existing laws.
What you can is not necessarily what you should be able to do.
If paying for music is so abusive then why not just make your own music instead?
I never said paying for music is abusive. I said not being able to share stuff you bought - or that someone has voluntarily shared with you - is abusive.
I might have misunderstood you. Do you mean that if they don't want you to share the content then they shouldn't sell it to you, because you will share it regardless of what the terms of the sale dictate?
These arguments on here are starting to feel like a broken record.
It's more like you lend your car to a friend under certain conditions (such as not relending) and find that they have in fact re-lent it to their friend who has in turn re-lent it to someone else who re-lent it to someone who decided to melt it down and sell it for scrap.
The author may not be, but then again when Renault sold me a car, they don't get to tell me who I can share it with.