note: this post is translated from russan, but other than a few examples used in it, it is still relevant

so, i've wanted to write about online piracy for a while, and i've finally gotten around to it, so here is my take on the moral side of this issue. it's important to note that this is a question of morality, and specifically the one that has formed in my mind over the last 2.5 years. i'll say right away that any piracy is, one way or another, always on the verge of theft, and according to the "general rule" in my head, it's a bad thing. this is because the author generally has certain rights to control their creations after they are released

0. the foundation.

i want to immediately note that in this case, we'll be talking primarily about the internet, or to be more precise, a part of it - the world wide web (hereafter, the web). at the same time, i want to point out that the concept of the open web, i.e., a free web, is very important to me personally. i believe the internet is a place of freedom, and it's extremely important that no one (including the state) can centralize the web around themselves. i also believe the internet should be a place for everyone, giving each person the opportunity to express themselves on it. you can read the open web manifesto and the free software definition if you're interested. because of all this and more, there are situations in which piracy becomes justified

1. it is always moral to pirate adobe software.

what's so special about adobe? this phrase, of course, refers to adobe applications, but it actually covers a much wider range of things, including windows, microsoft office, autodesk revit, and others. what all these programs have in common is that they are de-facto monopolists in their markets and either became so by actively resorting to anti-competitive behavior or turned to it after capturing the market, preventing new competitors from emerging. for example, adobe actively engages in practices like deceptive subscriptions that are very, very difficult to cancel (ftc press release, pdf of the lawsuit), and it recently nearly absorbed one of its main competitors, figma. and microsoft, for instance, is known for a strategy called embrace, extend, and extinguish (i think it's clear enough), which they used to destroy certain free standards (article). as you can imagine, those who pull stunts like these don't adhere to any standards themselves, and therefore, it can be argued that they are stealing your right to a free web and often your right to choose an alternative, which means you generally have the right to pirate their software. the issue is that by doing so, you are de-facto reinforcing their monopoly, which is why i insist that before you pirate photoshop or windows, you think about whether a free alternative really isn't suitable for you (it might be true that it isn't, but it's likely that an alternative, at least one worth considering, exists). important: not every large company necessarily falls into this category

2. abandonware.

this is a category of software that was originally distributed online under a proprietary license but was later abandoned by its developers and can now only be obtained through piracy. in my opinion, in this case, the right to access information, combined with the principle of an open web, outweighs the developer's right to control what other people do with copies of their original code, especially given that from a material point of view, it doesn't matter to the developer whether you get the software through piracy or simply don't get it at all. therefore, pirating such software is moral. i'll also briefly touch on copies here, as it needs to be mentioned, but i have neither the energy to write nor a fully formed position on all of copyright law. from what i've already written, you can tell that i don't have a major problem with copying content online if i don't have a problem with pirating it. but there are at least two other scenarios i'm fine with: copying that, from the author's perspective, is equivalent to no copying at all (for example, the internet archive, as a library, bought a book, made a digital copy of it, and allows one person at a time to use that copy while the original is not in use. i condemn this u.s. court decision), as well as copying related to the historical preservation of information until it reaches abandonware status, at which point it can be distributed quite freely again

3. science is not only for the rich.

pirating scientific articles is good and right. just like that, plain and simple, with almost no caveats. why? if you've ever been on google scholar, you've probably seen that many articles cost around $20 or even more if you don't have a university account. well, in the vast majority of cases, that money won't go to the scientist who wrote the article; instead, it will go to the journal and, perhaps, some publishers. what's more, the scientist also has to pay anywhere from a few hundred up to $10,000 for publication. so unless it's a small journal you want to support, or a unique agreement between the journal and the scientist that you're aware of - pirate away. the situation with textbooks is a bit more complicated, as authors do receive some royalties, but in general, especially if it's not a new textbook, i don't see a major problem with pirating them either, especially if the publisher doesn't provide a decent electronic version of the textbook or a proper app for it. but another idea fits well here: if you want to support educators, scientists, or anyone else, it's often better to just donate to them directly—they'll simply get more, and you'll spend less

4. government as usual.

if something is made with taxpayer money and is not free and is not distributed under an open license or placed in the public domain - it's a scam. feel free to pirate it all, because public money should be used to create things that benefit the public in as many ways as possible

5. ads that run the world.

in my opinion, ad blocking falls under piracy because you are bypassing the creator's requirement for accessing their content, thereby depriving them of their earnings, especially when even maintaining a simple, existing one-page website without updates will cost the creator at least $30 a year just for the domain and the simplest server on a cheap host. meanwhile, on a platform like vk, for example, the average cost per ad impression is about 10 kopecks, which correlates pretty well with the rest of the russian internet. consequently, if you visit a site and just block ads without a second thought - that's problematic. does this mean ads should never be blocked? no, i see a few exceptions that justify ad blocking. first, we can go back to point 1 and monopolies. if you can only order a taxi on, say, [yandex taxi], and it also shows you ads - block the hell out of them. the second point is broken promises. if there's a platform like [twitter] that makes a series of demands on you and then shows you ads for online casinos and even worse things (click) - blocking is also justified in my view. but again, maybe it's worth looking for an alternative and supporting developers who respect you, instead of driving traffic to a bad site

5.1. youtube.

i think this is a fairly unique place on the internet, as it's one of the few major platforms that allows content creators to actually earn money from built-in ads, since youtube takes 45% for itself, while the rest goes to the youtubers (there might be others taking a cut, like producers, but that's not youtube's doing). accordingly, i genuinely believe that in this case, if you really watch a lot of youtube, premium is actually a good thing for both the people you watch and for you. but, then again, youtube regularly shows less-than-great ads, failing to moderate them properly, so to some extent, i also understand the position of those who prefer to block ads. and plus, let's not forget that buying premium is difficult right now, which i've mentioned and will mention again

6. are y'all entertained?

music, movies, books, and games, as well as all other forms of classic entertainment in that vein. is it moral to pirate them? usually - no. the essence of creative professions is to engage an audience, and these are precisely the professions that can suffer greatly when their works are de-facto stolen. and even when we're talking about big studios - a studio can't just take your photograph and use it in their film without your consent. nevertheless, i believe that everyone, regardless of their background and so on, has a right to access culture. this is a large part of the function of a free web - to give everyone equal access to public life, regardless of who they are. consequently, if the only way to get access to something is piracy, then it is justified. here is an example of an indie game developer (who seem to be one of the most vulnerable groups in this regard) discussing this very topic, where they make a very interesting point: a purchase isn't the only way to support developers; telling your friends about the game and many other forms of support are also valid. it turns out that the inability to pay for access to culture (for any reason) is a sufficient argument to engage in piracy. you just need to be honest with yourself about whether you truly can't pay and, if so, whether you can support someone's work in other ways

7. emulate that nintendo, now!

let me say this right away - emulating something is not piracy in and of itself. if it's done for the preservation of something that could be lost, to expand access to information for those who truly couldn't access it otherwise, and for a whole ton of other legitimate reasons - it's a good and useful thing. so yes - fuck nintendo (one, two) and apple (one), and everyone else who tries to sue emulators

8. conclusion.

so, as you can probably guess, there are a whole bunch of different cases and variations of how piracy can exist on the web, and i don't plan on dissecting all of them here, but i think my logic is more or less clear. if you've actually read this far - wow, thank you