That's a really bad description of the torrent protocol.
The trash spawned by Hollywood these days can't be stolen, because it's not worth stealing. It's probably a sin to watch it, full stop, but it seems like it would be a sin to pay for it too - damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Even if the show was alright to watch, if you were to spend the money, you're spending it to give profit to a corporation that promotes sin and immorality both on the screen and in real life, by sponsoring homosexual rights/pride **** and donating to the organisations responsible for it (almost all corporations do: but some things, like food, one must buy, if one does not farm, but, other things, like shows, one does not have to buy, and can deprive the pushers of the degenerate Hollywood morality and the homosexual agenda of the profit necessary to continue furthering their goals). This - the knowing funding of the pushers of corruption, lust, fornication, adultery, buggery, and the liberal and homosexual agendas - must be at least as great a sin as the questionable characterisation of "stealing" any kind of computer file (as they are just long strings of zeros and ones, and numbers can not be copyrighted nor stolen).
Now, as to downloaded TV shows, 10 years ago there was no way to watch old TV shows - then people started uploading their home-recorded copies to the internet. Then the companies got greedy - just as they did when they tried to ban tape recording of radio music in the 80s before the age of CD players, and who honestly thinks taping music is a sin? - and started putting huge price tags on them, such as $299.99 for the 10 seasons of Stargate: SG-1, *which was free to watch on basic cable television during its first run in any case. (The issue the companies have is more with losing advertising than anything to do with the programme: **cable networks and production houses tried to sue TiVo out of existence when it first came out because it could skip commercials.) In that case, I see nothing wrong with the download, and the film might actually be worth watching, and, if you were to spend the money, you're spending it to give profit to a corporation that promotes sin and immorality both on the screen and in real life, by sponsoring homosexual rights/pride *** and donating to the organisations responsible for it (almost all corporations do: but some things, like food, one must buy, if one does not farm, but, other things, one does not have to buy, and can deprive the pushers of the degenerate Hollywood morality and the homosexual agenda of the profit necessary to continue furthering their goals).
In fact, the entire characterisation of downloading as "stealing" is a bunch of marketing nonsense (zeros and ones, remember? and that doesn't even scratch the surface of mathematical, let alone legal and ethical, permissions) thought up by the MPAA and RIAA - as evidenced by the fact that they tried to sue people for stealing half a decade ago and were laughed out of court, as even technologically illiterate lawyers and judges couldn't be convinced it was stealing. They've had more luck with the DRM lobby, but that's neither here nor there and has no bearing on the topic at hand. It's just a bunch of marketing nonsense - just like the taping of music from the radio would have been considered "stealing" by memetic programming of popular culture in the 1980s ("Home Taping is Killing Music"), as would copying computer files for archival use in the 1990s ("Don't Coppy that Floppy"): the "piracy scare" of the 2000/2010s ("You can download but you can't hide") is another groundless tactic in the same vein.
I'm a long-time member of the EFF and a philosopher and theologian to boot - I've had time to work my arguments out. This one that I mentioned above I just came up with off the top of my head, and it's weaker than a lot of them, but I still like the premises of it. It goes further than just being neutral, but actually pro-downloading if it can deprive the Hollywood Babylon of Fornication, Adultery and Buggery of funding.
Edit: I just wondered if I could adapt Liberation theology for the "higher" needs of life, i.e. education (and entertainment), which today both are mainly provided through electronic channels, with much of the same issue as the torrenting of films.