Let me explain here, as just one example. There was a tv show that was broadcast in the late 2000’s - early 2010’s. About 5-6 years ago, right when I felt nostalgic and wanted to watch it again, the tv show in question was pulled from all major streaming services, and DVDs of the show were not produced (or if they were, I was never able to get my hands on them). The only way that this cartoonish show was watchable for a time was via second-hand archives on YouTube, dailymotion, etc. However, despite the fact that the show was made inaccessible, the copyright holder’s official website states even to this day that the show is copyright, which means that unofficial uploads on YouTube should be in violation of copyright (the YouTube channels were just amateurish accounts and not credible, official accounts, just to be clear). As such, it was ambiguous as to whether the production company was going to lease the rights to the show. Whilst interest in the show has gone now, it did make me wonder: is it ever justifiable (either legally or ethically, or morally) to pirate media that has been completely pulled from circulation despite the original owner maintaining copyright (and therefore ownership) of? Or, is it (legally, ethically or morally) justifiable to pirate media where the copyright status is ambiguous (i.e. you don’t know if anyone owns it) [classic case study I always hear about: British PSAs, icons of 70’s 80’s and 90’s kids childhoods, yet locked behind copyright doors whose keys may lie in the hand of legal ambiguity]
piracy is always justifiable.
In theory, copyright law exists to create an incentive for people to engage in creative works. Copyright allows the creator to monopolize the distribution of their own work, and that monopoly makes the enormous amount of effort put into the work financially viable, in theory. If the creator has published the work, and is no longer distributing it, there is no monopoly for their copyright to protect. However they are using their copyright, it is not in the intended fashion and so it is ethically justifyable to bypass it.
That being said, in the modern context; the issue creatives face with monetization is not distribution, but discovery. There is so much content that being seen is the primary gatekeeper to financial success, so much so, that most creatives will legally give up their monopoly on distributing their work in exchange for promotion (publishing). In such an environment, piracy is effectively aiding the creator by spreading their reach, even if they are not directly paid. Their cultural relevance is much more important than that one sale. Despite this, the ownership of the properties ip is what holds value, and so the owners must keep up at least a token amount of resistance to piracy, to maintain their legal legitimacy.
You can see this reflected in the modern environment; easy, widespread piracy that is only occasionally resisted in the cheapest and most non-committal manner possible. Pirate whatever you want, and understand that you will occasionally be told to stop. However; that that request always comes with a wink.
I bought so many CDs of artists I found and downloaded on Napster and Limewire
Ethics is cool and all but have you tried coming to your own conclusion?
Do you feel okay with doing whatever measures you must to secure it? Is taking something that someone else has ‘legal’ control over wrong to you? Think about it this way, are you justified at coming up to my windows and taking pictures of my art work in my house? I’m not selling it, so clearly it’s fine since you’re not depriving me off monetary value and, if I wanted to have some control over it, I should be selling prints of it at least, right?
Or, like, it’s just a show. Keeping it and sharing it with others keeps it alive, instead of digitally rotting away. Don’t spend that much time thinking about any of it.
Why don’t you just say the show, though?
A better and more important real world case is revenge porn. The moral difference should be obvious to people with (y’know) morals, but it’s slightly more complex to define from a stricter ethical or especially legal framework. What fundamentally justifies the piracy and unregulated distribution of a show that’s been removed from public access vs material that the person may have originally consented to making and showing to others but objects or no longer consents to it being shown to a wider audience? It can’t just be the sexual nature in and of itself because what’s defined as intimate enough to restrict viewing is highly subject to cultural influence.
Once it was shown and accessible to the public there is a public interest in the copyrighted work as well. It’s part of culture, of history, of the public and human system. The copyright and ownership is no longer a singular concept but stands in relation and potentially in conflict with the public interest.
Some jurisdictions explicitly allow archiving as exceptions to copyright. Museums and archive.org can conditionally evade copyright, for example.
On revenge porn, the persons autonomy, self determination, bodily safety and honor, and psyche is a high good and significance that must be protected. This right is much more significant than any “public interest”, which is less prominent to other works anyway, because “revenge porn” has no artistic and constructive value as a creative or cultural work.
Well first of all, I did mention that this was something that happened 5-6 years ago. To be clear, I did watch the show on YouTube back then (I know I didn’t mention that, I probably should’ve), that wasn’t really the point of this post. You’re looking at it backwards: you’re assuming I’m asking because I want to know if I should watch the show. What actually happened is, I watched the show and it got me curious in a general sense what other people think (years later, I didn’t have Lemmy back then). I’m asking out of curiosity what other people think, not because I’m trying to make my own mind up. I was actually only using that show as an example for the question I was asking — any other show under the same ambiguity would’ve sufficed just as well to explain what I was asking, really. Second of all, the reason I don’t want to say the name of the show is because it’s a show that had a very niche audience, and I know other people IRL who use this platform and I don’t want to risk them finding out I have an account here for personal reasons. They know I was a huge fan of this show so they’ll click straight away if they came across this and I’d named the show.
Fair enough on the name of the show being personally identifiable but, five years ago or today, what does it matter? What does it matter to you? What sin are you looking to be absolved of? If it’s so niche that a) the only place you could find it was YouTube and b) so few people know of it that it would identify you, go look up the creator and find a way to send them a fiver and pirate that. Who actually cares?
Because I’m interested, as in, in the topic of legal, moral and ethical implications, not just of this show, but ambiguous media in general. I’m not on about absolving anything. I simply find it an interesting topic is all. Is that not motivation enough to ask? In any case, what’s it to you why I care?
Piracy is quite frequently justifiable, even on common media.
In our modern landscape, the vast majority of creators don’t see a dime when you view their material, so I have no reason to feel obligated to line the coffers of some conglomerate that’s effectively stealing the artist’s money.
I’ll pay for niche streaming services (paying for dropout directly helps the cast and crew) and buy merch from artist sites or shows, but I’m not going to feel guilty that downloading an album off a torrent takes away the fractions of a cent that my streams would give when I can pay them directly for a shirt and physical copy of the album if I ever get to see them live.
If they don’t want to make money on it anymore, that’s their call. They don’t get to forbid us from accessing our own culture, though. If they don’t want to provide any way to access the content at all, the internet at large will provide.
If no one loses any income from you pirating something then I’d say it’s impossible to be immoral. I’d imagine that anyone actually involved in original production would just be happy that there’s still someone out there interested in their work.
If the only person who loses income is a corporation then it’s still morally acceptable because corporations themselves are inherently amoral.
Pirate everything but balance the books by directing money to the original creators with things like merch or going to live shows or conventions etc
Interesting. What’s your belief on the subject for media that was crated by someone who no longer makes money off of it (e.g. they’re dead, or they sold the rights or ip) but is owned by someone else who had nothing to Do with the creation?
In my opinion, if they’re not the creator, or critical to the creation, of a work, they have no claim over it.
Even if they paid for the legal rights to?
The spirit of patenting an idea is so the creator can retain financial benifits from their ingenuity. If they sell it off and the buyer just sits on it, it is ethical to pirate. The buyer needs to make something new with the idea before they have any real contribution to the original idea.
Did they pay you for anything? Then who cares, you’re not included in the contract and not bound by it.
This reminds of what happened with one of the most infamous sci-fi design controversies: the Daleks:
The concept was conceived by a writer called Terry Nation, but he only created the outline (the story, etc.) but didn’t create the design. Instead, these characters were designed by Raymond Cusiak, and they became immensely popular, drawing in millions of viewers. However, because of some legal loophole, Cusiak did not receive royalties for his design, only Terry Nation received royalties despite the fact that the design of the Daleks (the lure for viewers) was created by someone else entirely. Not necessarily a legal issue, but certainly a moral/ethical one.
Well that has an easy solution.
EXTERMINATE
lol true
Justifiable? Maybe. Maybe not. I’m not an armchair ethics professor like most of the nerds in this discussion.
I cut out all all the extra dance steps and forgo justification entirely. If I want it, I’ll attempt to take it one way or another.
It’s probably illegal but it’s completely moral in my opinion. Like, wtf are you supposed to do if not pirate? They pulled the show. You cannot obtain it legally even if you wanted to
To add to this the price should be reasonable. If the price for some old ass shit is crazy expensive it’s essentially NOT available legally and should be pirated.
For example Nintendo charging full price for some nostalgia game.
Nintendo is awful in general, but especially when it comes to their old libraries.
If no one can own anything, then piracy doesn’t exist.
Download that show. It’s a form of protest, as far as I’m concerned.
Make sure to bind your torrent client to your vpn. VPNs have a killswitch but the binding offers a bit for insurance.
What makes torrenting justified in my view:
- Enshittification of streaming services with ad breaks.
- Shows typically have a 2 year gap before we can watch the next 8-10 episodes.
- Not all shows are available in all countries.
- The customer has to pay for multiple services to binge an entire show.
- Physical media is not always available.
It’s always justifiable to pirate shows. Specially in a world where they make it so hard to own the media you are buying.
if buying isn’t owning, pirating isn’t stealing.
If buying were owning, piracy wouldn’t be stealing either. It’s copyright infringement.
If it cannot be purchased for reasonable price on a good medium and owned forever, then piracy is justified.
Piracy is justifiable in a vastly greater number of scenarios than just pulled media.
To keep it short: Yes, it is.
Short, sweet and to the point! Thanks for sharing your view (even if it’s not detailed lol)
Media piracy is always justifiable.
Unless you’re using it to train AI. Then you should either have to pay so much that your company goes bankrupt, or just be put to death, cause fuck you, Mark Zuckerberg.
Don’t pirate books from living authors.
Writing pays so little, and book tours are exhausting and pay even less.
A good book is a massive gift of energy and talent to the few people who will read it. Thank them for it with your dollars.
As a musician, I say do it, pirate away, come to the shows, tell your friends. And also, it’s only $9 so maybe buy it when you can
Edit : change – to , I am a hooman
Can you explain in what terms?
Sure:
-
Nothing is actually being stolen. This is to say, if I copy a movie and give it to you, I still have the movie, my neighbor probably still has their copy of the movie, the store down the street still has the same number of movies, amazon still has its copy it uses for streaming, etc.
-
The entertainment industry, like most others, is a parasitic entity that stifles creation and attempts to maximize shareholder profit at the expense of any/everything else, including the well-being of the artists, creators, and those who actually do the work of making things, as well as the consumer, who consistently has to pay more and more to receive less and less for things that are cheaper and cheaper to produce / reproduce.
-
It’s becoming incredibly common for a digital item you “purchase” to be deleted from your account at the whims of whichever company “sold” it to you. At this point, most digital things you “purchase” you don’t actually own. This includes movies, music, books, audiobooks, TV shows, games, PC software, apps, etc. If I’m not allowed to own anything without the risk of someone arbitrarily deciding I can’t have it any more, even if I pay “full price” for it, why should I bother paying for it in the first place? It’s not like 90% of that money isn’t just going to some corporate asshole’s 3rd house while the creators and laborers make a comparative pittance. (me purchasing it isn’t going to fix that problem.)
-
By the time a quality version of a product is piratable, the majority of the profit has likely already been made by whatever corporation has packaged and sold it before they gave the smallest amount they possibly could to the creator(s) and the people who helped make it happen. If you really want to support someone because you like their work, it’s probably more ethical all-around to pirate said work and then donate directly to those that made it a thing than it would be to squander the majority of that money on fuel for the CEO of Sony’s new jet.
-
Despite all of this, many others will never agree with me and will continue to pay into this shit system, which is to say, no one is going to “kill the industry”. If artists are hurting, it’s because the rich aren’t paying their fair share to those who made them rich. Let’s look at Netflix’s executive compensation:
Co-CEO Ted Sarandos: Total 2025 compensation was roughly $53.9 million. <br> Co-CEO Greg Peters: Total 2025 compensation was roughly $53.2 million.<br> CFO Spencer Neumann: Total 2025 compensation was roughly $20.8 million.<br> CLO David Hyman: Total 2025 compensation was roughly $15.4 million.<br> Chief Global Affairs Officer Clete Willems: Total 2025 compensation was roughly $14.3 million (partial year).
- So, Netflix spent $157.6 million on just 5 people but can’t afford to pay the people that make those inflated salaries possible because… piracy? Also, it’s important to remember that executive compensation, just like normal employee compensation, is considered an operating cost and Netflix’s ~$11 billion profit for 2025 is the money still on the books after paying everyone. So like, that “profit” number could be waaay smaller while that employee compensation number could be waaaay bigger, were it not for the “shareholders” needing to get their cut for… Well, for paying a bit of money and then not doing anything. Show me on the $11 billion-in-profit-shaped doll where the pirates hurt Netflix. This is just one company.
Starting the counting over b/c either idk any numbers higher than 5 or b/c I don’t understand markdown. Take your pick. 6. There are lots of things I simply wouldn’t have watched / known about were it not for online sharing. Why should I be denied entertainment and shared cultural experience just because I can’t afford a thing? My awareness of my inability to afford much keeps me from actively looking at things that would cost money in the first place. I am also consciously boycotting industries and companies for the shitty treatment, overwork, and underpay for workers. This means I’m not spending money on streaming services regardless of whether I get to watch anything or not, so what money are they “losing” when it was never going to be theirs to begin with?
-
If I give a friend a copy of a DVD, or even a USB with copies of 100 movies I own, should I really be fined $100,000 (per offense, iirc) and/or be put in jail for a year? That’s pretty fucked up.
-
I’m sure there are other reasons, but I’m tired now.
Anyway, go nuts, just use a VPN.
Starting the counting over b/c either idk any numbers higher than 5 or b/c I don’t understand markdown.
I think the problem might be that if the numbered list is broken by bulletpoints or non-list paragraphs, it restarts the numbering from 1.
Ha thanks. I figured it was something like that but was also too lazy to figure out how to rectify the issue while still keeping a block quote and another bullet / paragraph where I wanted them.
-
I’d say mostly that media companies have become openly hostile to consumers - the very people who buy their products - as your example shows.
If I can’t legally buy the media, then I’m left with no choice but to pirate it.
What if they’re an independent artist who self-publishes their work?
That plus they don’t make media in the digital landscape clear in terms of stealing and copyright. Thats why I have issues with the system as it is — it’s a type of product that’s practically unprecedented. If it were, say, stealing a loaf of bread in the shop, it’d be an easy explanation. But the digital landscape is so complex, not just in terms of content and ownership, but also in the legal, ethical and moral nuances, especially if the owner/copyright holder themselves is ambiguous/unclear on their stance) that I just find making head or tail of it incomprehensible. Or that’s my view of it anyway.
Piracy isn’t stealing. At most it’s an IP violation.
Stealing a loaf of bread in the shop is also always justifiable if only because fuck anyone who has enough money and resources to have a shop stocked with bread and would allow another human to starve over a few cents.
There is no moral obligation to obey copyright laws
Spoken like a true AI company CEO
They have other stuff to answer for
Once media (any media) has been digitized and the cost of producing a duplicate is negligible, even in capitalist economists own terms, the price of further copies of the thing should trend towards zero over time. It’s only through extreme greed and state enforcement (which in theory goes against capitalist economics, though we all of course know that to be a lie) that the ability to sell individual digital goods is possible.
In other words, it is more ethical to “pirate” resources that it doesn’t cost anything to produce than it is ethical to prevent people from accessing that media for monetary reasons. If a particular artist feels that someone shouldn’t consume some media they created for some other reason, then I would respect that. But it’s not artists or creators who ever have a problem with that, it’s the production studios that exist to turn art into profit who care, artists themselves tend to be very OK with people accessing their work for free.
Ideally, we would have a system in place (UBI, cultural enrichment programs, etc) which funded art creation directly as a collective effort rather than through individualized personal purchases.
Go for it. AI basically made piracy legal, or these companies would be facing massive lawsuits, right?
