But for every argument like that you can throw up an opposing case. What about if the person being pushed over the cliff had a chronic illness that meant life was not worth living and they asked to be pushed over a cliff: this situation is probably more likely (just about...) in the real world than the $100 + miraculous escape scenario
Is it still wrong to push someone off a cliff?
More importantly, is it always wrong to push someone off a cliff.
Can we all agree that there are always situations where binary right/wrong do not apply
In the context of copyright infringement, the only moral rights the author has (in my country - Ireland) are (1) to be identified as the author of the work (2)the right to prevent mutilation, distortion or other derogatory alteration of the work, (3) the right not to have a work falsely attributed to you: and fair dealing exceptions of course come into play in (2) for comment/criticism.
There's no such thing as a moral right to not have your copyright infringed, that's a breach of civil law. The copyright law that was originally put in place (and is rapidly degrading) recognised that copyright is an agreement between creators and the public, and most importantly that creative acts has benefit for society as a whole, not just for the author. This balance between the author's benefit and society's benefit is why it's possible to say in some circumstances that "it's not wrong as long as the outcome is good"
When you say "wrong" do you mean morally wrong or unlawful?
How can it be morally wrong if the outcome is good? (but good for who....)
If it's unlawful but has a good outcome then maybe the law is too strict.