Here's a table I adapted from Louis Rossman's video on the levels of piracy, grey areas and his morals and ethics on it. (spreadsheet file)
I tried to condense each rank and make it less about a specific type of media like CD audio or DVD video, along with a table of simplified characteristics of each situation. Of course more levels can be added and there are many situations not covered. This hierarchy is simply the way Louis ordered it from more to less justifiable; he respects people can think about it differently and I do too. He suggests that he doesn't really care about people that pirate without giving a shit about creators, and that he only has a problem with people who aren't honest with themselves about their motivations.
Setting legality aside, what 'level of piracy' is morally or ethically acceptable to you?
I do not know about the video but i can't agree with this table. Even if you don't buy it an artist work should be spread if you're not the one buying it by talking about it or just seeding you'll allow someone to support the author. This makes piracy look like some grey thing, IT IS NOT.
Support the artists and if you can't or don't want to, spread the word this is how it works.
When someone says piracy or "using an unauthorized copy of someone's work" it can be for many different reasons.
On the moral and ethical side (as I'm leaving out the legality aspect from the discussion) some of these situations may sit well with some people, some may not. The list of situations themselves are adapted from Louis's free-market viewpoint. He has articulated in the past that people that bring something of value should be awarded in kind, and spreading the word to drive sales justifies using work without paying to him is like paying a professional photographer in "exposure".
I can understand if you disagree with the premise of the chart because of the above, it's just the basis from which I formed it.