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?
Ranks 1 through 9 Is Not Piracy as you've paid for your copy in some manner typically. Rank 11 & 12 is not piracy
Ranks 10, 13, and 14 are JUSTIFIABLE Piracy. You are free to debate the merits of doing these things or choose not to do them yourself.
Rank 15 is blatant piracy and is arguably socially unacceptable and fully subject to full penalty of law. Don't be that guy!
My ethics are simple; You must fulfill one of two conditions:
Notably:
Both rules exclude the ability to "Rent" a piece of content from somewhere, "Borrow" it from a library and "Buy" it online from a digital market place that is exclusive to a piece of technology you do not own and do not plan to, and would not elect to purchase.
As an example; any and all content that is exclusively available on iTunes or exclusively through using an iDevice is not reasonably obtainable; I do not own an Apple device, I do not wish to buy or own one. I would be within my rights to pirate any content I see as desirable. I despise Apple and refuse to use their products; so I am within my rights to pirate anything that requires you to use an Apple device or account to access the right to purchase it.
This would not be acceptable if the content were available through Google Play; as I already own an Android Smartphone, and the marketplace is reasonably accessible and reasonably priced in most cases.
This does not include situations where accessing the ability to purchase content requires a large number of convoluted steps. For example; I shouldn't be required to mail in a letter only to obtain a temporary credential necessary to access the purchasing front-end, submit more personally identifying information than necessary to fill an order in an account creation process, or be required to call a specific phone number to support to ask for an exception to a policy or permission to purchase or retain access to a purchase.
As a final clarification: Streaming == Renting.
No 'ifs', 'ands', or 'buts' about it. A streaming service is renting access to a specific batch of content for an agreed upon price, paid at a regular interval. This is not a purchase. Instead it is a patronage agreement.
Thanks for engaging with the scenarios listed. The point of the exercise is to see where people land personally, there's no one size fits all ethical principles but a lot of overlap. The RIAA, MPA, Irdeto (the group that makes Denuvo) etc. could argue that all of these cases are piracy and unjustifiable. Others see everything as justifiable, just because they're used to it, it's simply not financially accessible to them, they don't care or they just want to subvert the entire concept of capitalist ownership, as evidenced in replies downthread.
In most cases either they filled option 1; or having no access to a purchase option they feel is reasonable fills option 2.
Few people, if any, are truly rank 15. I don't give a damn what the corporate folks say or think. Most of the time they're basically blaming the victims of their own poor decision making anyways.
I don't agree that Rank 10 should be placed where it is; it is more akin to Rank 15 in similarity...the attitude is more entitled than it should be. Ripping your own copy should be something you are not only allowed; but encouraged to do...as it often nullifies any content protection that might interfere with your right to enjoy the content that you purchased in a way that the rights holder didn't expect. Furthermore it removes all doubt that your digital copy is legitimate, as you derived it from a physical copy that you already own...and have fair use doctrine as well as purchase license and access to.
Ripping your physical copies is also a further message to creators that DRM and Copy Protection is an unacceptable format.
As an additional note: I firmly believe that people who sell copies of things they pirated are ranked at 15. They are blatantly ignoring the law for no justifiable reason. You as a customer purchasing from those people are not liable for their law breaking however; similar to how you are not liable for people who are ignoring the law by handing out free pirated copies to everyone. The burden of breaking the law is upon the one committing the crime.
The reason I advocate ripping your own copies; is simple. If you got caught with a copy you obtained from someone else's physical copy; you could be reasonably ordered by a judge to "Forfeit (delete all copies in your possession of) that illegitimate copy". It's likely to happen when they catch the person making the illegal copies. Ripping your own personal digital copy from your physical copy is provably not piracy. It's a different act altogether; as you are using something you already own within your rights of possession and property. Instead, ripping your own copies is legal preservation.