Because it's always good to make it easier to break the law and steal movies.
The short answer is yes, it is better to make it easier to "break the law" and "steal movies."
By "breaking the law" you are actually just diminishing the artificial right that has been temporarily granted to the copyright holder.
That right (copyright) was never intended to be more important than an individuals natural right to share ideas and information.
Copyright's purpose is to give additional incentive to people who create, to share that creation, by allowing them an artificially stronger (than it would normally be) right to decide who to share the creation with.
That right directly conflicts every individuals natural rights to communicate and share ideas. There needs to be a balance.
I think there are things we need to reconsider.
In the case of music, what has this type of incentive provided us? Has copyright actually given us better music? What kind of musician (composer, player, singer etc.) has this form of copyright favored evolutionarily? I would argue that over all the quality of musician has gotten worse as copyright has grown in scope and strength.
Thus we need to reconsider how music is protected by copyright.
Other media needs to be subject to the same scrutiny as well.
To simply chant the mantra that "it's the law" is basically an appeal to tradition, and not a valid argument for why it is wrong to copy things.
It is a valid argument in favor of not copying things, but that is not the same as saying copying things is "wrong."
I would hope that most Americans, while not always willing to exercise it, would still recognize that civil disobedience is not immoral and that blind faith in "the law" is not something one should be proud of.