Rentlar

Louis' list comes from the perspective of moral in the sense that "were the people that provided you entertainment value provided appropriate compensation" which is why the list is ordered this way.

Looking at it in the lens of preserving items for the common good, this could take form of #1 or #3, where you bought a copy but you don't want it to degrade or fade into obscurity, but it could also be #15 where you just don't want to lose it and it doesn't matter to you whether the creator should have benefited.

It's important to be cognizant of various worldwide perspectives, considering the part of your comment on political discourse.

Some countries don't care that everyone pirates everything and anything.

Others, like Japan for example, have copyright ingrained both in the laws and in the culture. Some think "right clicking and saving an image on a public website" is theft. It's part of the reason Sony and Nintendo are so anal about copyright and how there are no Manga sharing sites located in Japan.

So not only the laws different everywhere what is legitimate discourse changes too.

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.

see my other comment

I don't agree with everything he says but he does stick to his principles well.

I totally understand that. But the colouring is for the category column and not in the context of the situation row, and since the column is about putting money forward or not, Yes is positive and No is negative.

In a sense, not being able to afford it is itself a region lock on it.

Yeah, so it seems like some of the situations in the table would be acceptable to you but not all.

3. You always have the right to do with your copy of media, whatever you want. Remix, trade, critique, promote, copy, etc

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.

Do it loudly and do it proudly! Well, not so loudly that the feds hear about it.

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.

The colours have only partial relevance to whether it's more or less ethical in the context of piracy. The colours signify more what is better for that category specifically. Having no DRM is better than not, supporting a creator is better than not, having it availble to buy or rent is better than having it discontinued, as a few examples.

Green = Good for that category, Red = Bad, Yellow = Mixed, Grey = Not good nor bad.

Calhoun's MCAS might have been set incorrectly 👀