Let me explain here, as just one example. There was a tv show that was broadcast in the late 2000’s - early 2010’s. About 5-6 years ago, right when I felt nostalgic and wanted to watch it again, the tv show in question was pulled from all major streaming services, and DVDs of the show were not produced (or if they were, I was never able to get my hands on them). The only way that this cartoonish show was watchable for a time was via second-hand archives on YouTube, dailymotion, etc. However, despite the fact that the show was made inaccessible, the copyright holder’s official website states even to this day that the show is copyright, which means that unofficial uploads on YouTube should be in violation of copyright (the YouTube channels were just amateurish accounts and not credible, official accounts, just to be clear). As such, it was ambiguous as to whether the production company was going to lease the rights to the show. Whilst interest in the show has gone now, it did make me wonder: is it ever justifiable (either legally or ethically, or morally) to pirate media that has been completely pulled from circulation despite the original owner maintaining copyright (and therefore ownership) of? Or, is it (legally, ethically or morally) justifiable to pirate media where the copyright status is ambiguous (i.e. you don’t know if anyone owns it) [classic case study I always hear about: British PSAs, icons of 70’s 80’s and 90’s kids childhoods, yet locked behind copyright doors whose keys may lie in the hand of legal ambiguity]

To keep it short: Yes, it is.

Short, sweet and to the point! Thanks for sharing your view (even if it’s not detailed lol)

Legally, no. There are some grey areas to be poked around in like orphaned works whose ownership is ambiguous or contested, but it doesn't sound like your problem falls into that category. The media company that made the show you're after still maintains copyright and legally controls every aspect of distribution.

Ethically is a much more interesting question. If you pirated the media you're after, an older work with no way to watch it legally, the creators aren't really hurt because you're not depriving them of revenue. Pretend there were DVD's to be had though, if you buy them on the second hand market the creator doesn't get a cut of that sale so who's really harmed? What if the new price of the DVD's was more than you could afford or justify spending? If you were never going to be a new customer, does that make it okay to steal since again the creator isn't losing anything?

In the start of 2000 the American diffusion rights for Cowboy Bebop was held by Disney. It cost in my region nearly 50$ for 2 episodes on DVD (there’s 26 episodes).

The reason was that « animation » was their turf and they were no good reason for them to let so oriental men be better than Disney at it. So they bought most of the diffusion rights and didn’t distribute the product.

Most of the time … piracy is ethical

Are you asking if it's ethical, or asking if it's moral?

Huh, that point about the DVDs is interesting. Only question I would ask is: even if they’re second hand, does it factor into the debate that the DVDs were originally put out by the company and initially bought by someone for the correct price (but then on the other hand, the second hand buyer is paying less for the same show (arguably legally?) but in any case both the first hand and second hand buyers are buying for less than the new price…)

I can’t decide!!!

Legal and ethical (you can add moral too, ig). Yeah, why not? Let’s do all 3

Just commenting that Tubi afaik has a lot of old shows that Copyright holders put on there just to make a few bucks. It has ads and is owned by Fox.

Didn’t they just make a deal with Cartoon Network for 20 old shows or something? (Was it Cartoon Network or another old channel/service?)

I'd say it's both ethical and moral, but also illegal.

One of my gripes about how goddamn long copyright lasts is that it makes officially sharing a digital copy a crime. Perfectly applied, most music would have disappeared from existence before it can be digitized and disseminated throughout hard drives around the world. The only reason the majority of copyrights are even monitored at this point is to harvest money from YouTube videos; those people have absolutely no interest in preservation.

Makes me think of that old horror movie Nosferatu: Stoker’s wife sued the producers and the court ordered that all copies of the movie be destroyed. It was only that a few prints of the movie were hidden (arguably pirated, certainly meeting the legal definition) that that movie is still watchable today, and critics call it one of the greatest horror movies of history (or at least one of the earliest/most influential)

That's a cool story.

There's a lot of cinema that was just thrown into the trash. If you ever see Metropolis, imagine 100 movies like that that we will never see.

Sad

Media piracy is always justifiable.

Can you explain in what terms?

Someone could make the argument that the secondary market for media is part of the total ecosystem. Someone might be more inclined to buy something new if they know they can resell it later so the secondary market impacts the new market in that way. The creator doesn't see any of the money being exchanged on the secondary market though so the people really benefiting from it are resellers and collectors trying to unload something. They're hurt if you choose to pirate instead of buying used.

But in terms of the creator a pirated copy and a used copy are no different. If your desire is to make sure the creator gets what they deserve then you're best option is new DVD's or streaming. But, if like the show you're currently after those options aren't available, I'd say there's no reason not to pirate the media. If you still want to make sure the creator gets paid keep an eye on them and buy/stream it if they ever release it.

Wow, that’s a very well thought, articulated opinion. Thanks for sharing

I'd say mostly that media companies have become openly hostile to consumers - the very people who buy their products - as your example shows.

If I can't legally buy the media, then I'm left with no choice but to pirate it.

I'd argue the creator sees the second purchaser's revenue in the original price of the product, and the original purchaser may not have bought if they couldn't resell.

Net sale is the same, just distributed across two consumers.

That plus they don’t make media in the digital landscape clear in terms of stealing and copyright. Thats why I have issues with the system as it is — it’s a type of product that’s practically unprecedented. If it were, say, stealing a loaf of bread in the shop, it’d be an easy explanation. But the digital landscape is so complex, not just in terms of content and ownership, but also in the legal, ethical and moral nuances, especially if the owner/copyright holder themselves is ambiguous/unclear on their stance) that I just find making head or tail of it incomprehensible. Or that’s my view of it anyway.

If buying isn’t owning then piracy isn’t stealing.

you forgot the not.

I think it's ethically justifiable to pirate media that has been abandoned by its creators; without such action, media would become lost.

Legally, it's not ok until it goes out of copyright, but if the company that has the rights to a work isn't even selling it, it'd be rather weird for them to bother wasting money pursuing a claim against you.

I'd rather like to see the laws changed so that what feels ethical and what is legal are in alignment with each other again, but I don't expect sanity on that front to show up during my lifetime...

But what if you didn’t know if the creators had definitely abandoned it? After all, if they maintain copyright control, there’s surely the possibility that they might revive it at some point/re exert their control over it, right?

Yes.

Mostly because the media is no longer owned by the buyer. It used to be back in the day DVD box sets were a thing, now? Not so much. I think you should becuase it's been proven that a corporation will literally do whatever it needs for it to do to make shit more marketable. Including removing shows and what not if it has any issues to today's overtly contestable woke olympics.

Totally fair, I've certainly heard the argument made to justify the outrageous costs in the Magic: The Gathering secondary market. What I don't like about the argument though is that resellers aren't the majority of purchasers and the number of people buying media solely to resell is a small fraction of the market. I'll grant you that a small fraction still could be a non-trivial chunk of change for the creator but ultimately why someone buys something doesn't matter all that much.

Reselling media particularly is an insane risk. Take OP's show, I don't think they ever named it, but if the creators dropped a limited run DVD or Blu-ray series tomorrow there would be no telling whether a secondary market would exist at all. If the show isn't streaming and doesn't already have a DVD release, it's bound to be a very obscure show that never got very popular. Those buyers hoping to bet on being able to flip the DVD's later might be out of luck. So it doesn't really matter if the theoretical resale-ability factors in or not, the new purchase is made regardless.

But I don't feel particularly strong about this aspect of the discussion, in fact I almost talked myself out of my position while writing this.

If I can't go on Amazon and buy a copy for sale at any price, I'm of the opinion that I'm justified in pirating it -- and I have put my money where my mouth is on that point.

Edit: to be clear, I'm talking about commercially produced films and tv shows; I'd look elsewhere for e.g. games

TLDR- In your case, that wouldn't be called piracy.

Once media (any media) has been digitized and the cost of producing a duplicate is negligible, even in capitalist economists own terms, the price of further copies of the thing should trend towards zero over time. It's only through extreme greed and state enforcement (which in theory goes against capitalist economics, though we all of course know that to be a lie) that the ability to sell individual digital goods is possible.

In other words, it is more ethical to "pirate" resources that it doesn't cost anything to produce than it is ethical to prevent people from accessing that media for monetary reasons. If a particular artist feels that someone shouldn't consume some media they created for some other reason, then I would respect that. But it's not artists or creators who ever have a problem with that, it's the production studios that exist to turn art into profit who care, artists themselves tend to be very OK with people accessing their work for free.

Ideally, we would have a system in place (UBI, cultural enrichment programs, etc) which funded art creation directly as a collective effort rather than through individualized personal purchases.

I have never heard a convincing argument that any piracy is ethically or morally wrong: no one is being deprived of anything. You have to manually construct a scenario where someone is about to pay an independent artist for their work and then decides to use a copy instead, and even then I think it's hard to argue any actual harms.

Copyright violations aren’t stealing anyways

There is no moral obligation to obey copyright laws

Legally, no. The law does not carve out any kind of exceptions here.

Ethically, it's not a lost sale if you never could've bought it in the first place. And I don't think it's fair to audiences to say they just don't get to enjoy the media at all if it's not officially available. If official means no longer exist, then piracy is preservation.

Morally, creators still do deserve compensation for their work, one way or another. So if you can't buy the work directly I think it's good to try and find other ways to support the creators if possible - such as buying merchandise or other projects they're involved with.

Great write up. This was the blinds of comments I was looking for in this chat.

Sure:

1. Nothing is actually being stolen. This is to say, if I copy a movie and give it to you, I still have the movie, my neighbor probably still has their copy of the movie, the store down the street still has the same number of movies, amazon still has its copy it uses for streaming, etc.

2. The entertainment industry, like most others, is a parasitic entity that stifles creation and attempts to maximize shareholder profit at the expense of any/everything else, including the well-being of the artists, creators, and those who actually do the work of making things, as well as the consumer, who consistently has to pay more and more to receive less and less for things that are cheaper and cheaper to produce / reproduce.

3. It's becoming incredibly common for a digital item you "purchase" to be deleted from your account at the whims of whichever company "sold" it to you. At this point, most digital things you "purchase" you don't actually own. This includes movies, music, books, audiobooks, TV shows, games, PC software, apps, etc. If I'm not allowed to own anything without the risk of someone arbitrarily deciding I can't have it any more, even if I pay "full price" for it, why should I bother paying for it in the first place? It's not like 90% of that money isn't just going to some corporate asshole's 3rd house while the creators and laborers make a comparative pittance. (me purchasing it isn't going to fix that problem.)

4. By the time a quality version of a product is piratable, the majority of the profit has likely already been made by whatever corporation has packaged and sold it before they gave the smallest amount they possibly could to the creator(s) and the people who helped make it happen. If you really want to support someone because you like their work, it's probably more ethical all-around to pirate said work and then donate directly to those that made it a thing than it would be to squander the majority of that money on fuel for the CEO of Sony's new jet.

5. Despite all of this, many others will never agree with me and will continue to pay into this shit system, which is to say, no one is going to "kill the industry". If artists are hurting, it's because the rich aren't paying their fair share to those who made them rich. Let's look at Netflix's executive compensation:

Co-CEO Ted Sarandos: Total 2025 compensation was roughly $53.9 million.

Co-CEO Greg Peters: Total 2025 compensation was roughly $53.2 million.

CFO Spencer Neumann: Total 2025 compensation was roughly $20.8 million.

CLO David Hyman: Total 2025 compensation was roughly $15.4 million.

Chief Global Affairs Officer Clete Willems: Total 2025 compensation was roughly $14.3 million (partial year).

• So, Netflix spent $157.6 million on just 5 people but can't afford to pay the people that make those inflated salaries possible because... piracy? Also, it's important to remember that executive compensation, just like normal employee compensation, is considered an operating cost and Netflix's ~$11 billion profit for 2025 is the money still on the books after paying everyone. So like, that "profit" number could be waaay smaller while that employee compensation number could be waaaay bigger, were it not for the "shareholders" needing to get their cut for... Well, for paying a bit of money and then not doing anything.
  Show me on the $11 billion-in-profit-shaped doll where the pirates hurt Netflix. This is just one company.

Starting the counting over b/c either idk any numbers higher than 5 or b/c I don't understand markdown. Take your pick.
6. There are lots of things I simply wouldn't have watched / known about were it not for online sharing. Why should I be denied entertainment and shared cultural experience just because I can't afford a thing? My awareness of my inability to afford much keeps me from actively looking at things that would cost money in the first place. I am also consciously boycotting industries and companies for the shitty treatment, overwork, and underpay for workers. This means I'm not spending money on streaming services regardless of whether I get to watch anything or not, so what money are they "losing" when it was never going to be theirs to begin with?

1. If I give a friend a copy of a DVD, or even a USB with copies of 100 movies I own, should I really be fined $100,000 (per offense, iirc) and/or be put in jail for a year? That's pretty fucked up.

2. I'm sure there are other reasons, but I'm tired now.

Anyway, go nuts, just use a VPN.

It is never legally justifiable to pirate anything, by definition.

That being said, ahoy maties, 🏴‍☠️🏴‍☠️🏴‍☠️🏴‍☠️🏴‍☠️

Piracy is always justifiable.

Unless you’re using it to train AI. Then you should either have to pay so much that your company goes bankrupt, or just be put to death, cause fuck you, Mark Zuckerberg.

Go for it. AI basically made piracy legal, or these companies would be facing massive lawsuits, right?

Stealing a loaf of bread in the shop is also always justifiable if only because fuck anyone who has enough money and resources to have a shop stocked with bread and would allow another human to starve over a few cents.

Exactly. You're pirating every time you watch an advertisement.

If it cannot be purchased for reasonable price on a good medium and owned forever, then piracy is justified.

My view is the difference between an artist and a scam artist is that an artist would not mind others seeing their work without payment to make some assessment of its value and to build genuine support. I stopped going to movies because of my utter disappointment with the trash in the industry. A scam artist is going to demand payment before you even know what you're actually getting and use various shady marketing tactics, including sunk cost fallacy, to get your business.

If it is something I like and see value in what a person is doing, then I want to contribute to that. I don't want to pay a bunch of money to see something that I am left feeling like I just wasted money. Therefore, I have no problem with piracy to the extent that if I were to really enjoy it and want to keep watching then naturally I want to support the creators.

Piracy isn't stealing. At most it's an IP violation.

Good points.

There's certainly nuance there to be considered, which my statement doesn't really address.

It's still morally wrong in the absolute sense since you're taking something for free that you're implicitly expected to pay for. However if there is no way for you to actually pay for it even if you wanted then that makes this one of the clearer cases in which one can morally defend piracy. It's still not right but it's less wrong.

The only scenario that I can think of that would be even more clear is when you've actually bought the media already but the disc got damaged for example as was the case with my GTA San Andreas back in the day: I had bought the game but the disc exploded in the drive so I was forced to crack it so that I could play without the disc.

What was the show?

My own personal morals are with where are the profits going? To the corporation ceos and stars? Then 100% stealing is justified. The writers, crew editors, session muscisians, programmera, designers etc got paid a salary once and yet others profit off it for decades, nah. I hold off on current shows if I want them to keep making more seasons.

I do try and be more thoughtful with bands and authors. I go to shows and signings and buy merch directly from them. Lord knows they don't earn anything off Spotify so may as well have my own library. I get most ebooks through Libby and dedrm them or at least borrow for a day before acquiring elsewhere since dedrm seems more difficult these days.

Retro games they already made their money, liberate them or at least make it easy and cheap to own. Steam solved this for modern PC games by having so far a decent service.

So in your case shows over, no one sells it, and if they did only a corporation would profit. Take the show Ed, there was never a DVD release and there's nowhere to stream it. So what other option is there if you want to rewatch it?

It's always justifiable to pirate shows. Specially in a world where they make it so hard to own the media you are buying.