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?
Here's a rough summary of my philosophy:
Intellectual property as it is typically defined and legally defended is a self-contradictory concept.
IP in an ideal world would protect creators from fraud, (others falsely claiming credit for their work.) And would ensure fair payment distribution to the artist and workers directly involved, (not allow giant multi-billion dollar corpos to control and profit off massive swaths of IP).
You always have the right to do with your copy of media, whatever you want. Remix, trade, critique, promote, copy, etc.
It is always preferable to pirate vs funding corpos.
Pay for products that respect you, don't pay to be abused or to help abuse others.
I always try to pay the artist and those actually involved directly.
As for the sound techs, producers, etc that work on a project, most of them are already receiving a salary/wages for their time. So I disagree with Louis that pirating media generally hurts those folks.
The artist usually has some conditional debt where the record label requires them to cover some portion of the production costs from sales before they start actually making money. This is frequently a very exploitative arrangement that favors the studio and label. (See points 4 & 5)
There is no perfect solution. If the artist is small enough, direct sales of merch and media is the best option. This is what I try to do as much as possible.
I think another point is that art is fundamentally not a commodity, or at least, shouldn't be treated as such. Capitalism corrupts everything it touches, art is no exception. Artists who are truly passionate about their craft will create no matter what, as evidenced by the far larger portion of "starving" artists in the world vs wealthy ones.
I hate that music, film, paintings, and such are now treated as portfolios of investments by billion dollar corpos and rich fat cats who don't give a shit about the purpose of art and just want to get rich.
Pay for products and services that respect you. Don't pay to support abusive and exploitative industries if you can avoid it. Support genuine artists. Everything will always be fuzzy, make your best call. Copying is not theft. Corpos are scum.
Yeah, so it seems like some of the situations in the table would be acceptable to you but not all.
Not if the way they give you the media restricts you from exercising those rights.
Warner Brothers is a perfect example about an art industry giant that doesn't give a flying fuck about art and artists. They'll throw years of artists' work in the trash if it makes them more money than not doing that.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Not if the way they give you the media restricts you from exercising those rights.
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.