There are plenty of legitamate reasons for being in your 30's and living with parents. I moved home to help my dad take care of my mom when she was sick and they needed my help. Now that she is gone and he has difficulties with some household chores, it's easier to stay there to help when he needs it and to help the both of us to save money by sharing expenses. That doesn't make me or any other person living with a parent/parents less of a person or less successful. Sounds like you are the type to lock up your parents in a rest home as soon as you can so that you can start plundering the inheritence before they are even dead.
I'm unclear as to why you feel this is piracy. It's my understanding that piracy would involve making cash without owner's permission such as a membership fee to his(alleged pirate's) site to watch or download content directly from his(alleged pirate's) site or to sell a DVD/CD-Rom with the content on it, provide content from the owner's membership site to non-members for cash, etc where the content in question was directly involved in a transaction. By providing a link/embedded content to the actual site where the content is at, people/hits are credited to that site and to all the people/corporations that are looking to get rewarded by having people come and view that site. It would seem that the "pirate" enabled the owners of the content and websites to get traffic/hits so that they would get compensation/exposure. Isn't that the purpoise of the content/website creation and existance? You want to punish the person who is helping the content/website owners to accomplish the very goals they set out to achieve? That doesn't make sense. The ad revenue that the "pirate" gets on his webpage is earned from his work/investment on his own webpage and is not derived in any way from other people's content. You might even say it's a sort of a finder's fee for finding people to send to the site where the content is at.
Now if the content owner is not getting his compensation or has not given permission to the website where the content is at, then the problem/"piracy" is at the actual site hosting and profiting from said content. The site should be ordered to take down content or face legal action, like the process that is currently in use and spelled out by law. The site takes down the content, the link/embeded content doesn't work and people move on to something else to view. The system was already handling this issue in an orderly and fair way for all parties involved. Your sermon from on your soapbox seems misguided and incorrect for this case as has been reported here. By your logic, the majority of blogosphere linking to stories, photos, vids, etc to support their content would be subject to the same consequences as the so called "pirate" in this article.
Now, if the so called "pirate" was actually hosting/distributing the content and getting paid directly for that act and disobeyed cease and disist orders for doing that, that is a different matter...