I'd like to add a couple preservation-adjacent scenarios for you to consider. If a product is no longer made available by its rights holder, would it be unethical to acquire it through other means?

A: Pirating Abandonware

This would be software that was once sold, but is no longer made available by the rights holder. The creator of the software is no longer profiting from new or existing sales, and it's no longer possible to acquire a copy through legitimate means. At that point, does pirating the software actually hurt anybody?

• Argument against: not letting the software fade into obscurity stifles the market by providing freely-available competition to products that are actually being sold.

• Argument in favor: preventing piracy of the software will do more harm, as it stifles the growth of any community around the software.

B: Pirating Discontinued Software

This would be software that is no longer officially sold in its original form, but has been superseded by other software available from the same rights holder. For example, older versions of Adobe Photoshop.

• Argument against: pirating discontinued software hurts sales of the currently-available software.

• Argument in favor: currently-available software may be inferior to older versions. (example: licensed music being removed from remastered games)

C: Digitally Pirating Out-of-Circulation Physical Media

This would be acquiring digital archives of out-of-circulation physical media such as video games or out-of-print books. The media isn't sold by the rights holders anymore, but it would still be available through used goods resellers.

• Argument against: by pirating out-of-circulation media instead of paying for the physical copies, the individual is preventing the flow of capital through the second-hand market.

• Argument against: the rights holder may consider selling the media again in the future, and digital archives will prevent prospective buyers from purchasing the media when it eventually does become available.

• Argument in favor: it is financially inviable to acquire the media through the second-hand market. (as in: it's overpriced)

• Argument in favor: as the physical media degrades over time, it would become more scarce and may eventually be lost entirely.

• Argument in favor: under the assumption that second-hand resellers exist primarily for profiteering, giving them money does not contribute to humanity or culture in any meaningful way.

D: Removing DRM Technology

In this scenario, the individual has already purchased the media, but it is encumbered by DRM. Suppose the DRM either prevents the media from being accessed entirely^1^, or it hinders its usability^2^. Would it be ethical to use a "crack" on your purchased copy or acquire a pre-cracked copy from some other party?

^[1]^ Examples include: lifetime activation limits or activation servers being shut down after the expected lifetime of the product.

^[2]^ Examples include: always-online DRM, unnecessary resource usage

• Argument against: the existance of a crack could mean lost sales, since some individuals may choose to illegally acquire a pre-cracked copy instead of purchasing the media.

• Argument in favor: the DRM is hostile to the consumer. For example, the Sony BMG rootkit that caused excessive resource usage and provided a way for malware to conceal itself.

• Argument in favor: if the DRM is never removed from the media in the future it will hinder preservation efforts.

Public library near me is more expensive than amazon prime... I call that criminal.

As someone who grew up in the "golden age of piracy" who remembers those stupid FBI warnings on VHS tapes, I've never been able to wrap my head around that point of view. To me, it's always been propaganda that creates this so-called anti-piracy morality.

The idea that piracy is stealing is so foreign to me. Stealing/theft is a very specific behavior. Nobody called it Theft when competitors followed around Shakespeare and made copycat plays. Nobody STILL calls it theft when we see stupid copycat movies come out. Nobody called it theft if you got a "copy painting, signed by actual painter" before modern copyright law. Now they call it things (not usually quite theft).

To me, piracy just lacks all the hallmarks of stealing. Hell, I've been in lawsuits. In every other realm, the Law draws some very clear lines between real damages and potential ones, and in many cases if I have to sue somebody, the law might even PREVENT me from seeking the latter. So what's so special about piracy that so many people's headspace have this attitude the "how the world works" goes out the window and it's really stealing?

To me, it's always going to be a matter of propaganda. Very successful propaganda. And I think your last sentence backs that. The big media IP owners started pushing the bubble of "it's stealing" to libraries as well, and only backed off when it didn't work. They were somewhat more successful with "used games" and have largely succeeded in killing the used game market off in some domains. I consider it stealing if a game company locks a physical product behind a single-use code so that they can seize part or all of the product if you purchase it used.

But here's my counterpoint to all of the befuddlement. The companies don't call these things products anymore, but licenses (so they can seize them at will from people who paid for them). How can you steal something that you can't own in the first place?

@oxjox @vis4valentine

I'm not bashing you, just pointing out our differences, but I think it's really interesting that you say "me enjoying it ... has zero impact on the content creators" but you also think you SHOULD feel bad for it and that it's wrong.

My view (that cannot possibly be theft) *feels* natural to me, and your viewpoint (if I tried to have it myself) would feel way more like "rationalizing" or "justifying".

Also you're right, public libraries rock :)