> If the answer is "not at all", then why pirate it, since the ability to use the product didn't matter in the first place? I'm not sure I understand what you

> If the answer is "not at all", then why pirate it, since the ability to use the product didn't matter in the first place? I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The non-pirated version frequently doesn't work for various groups of people. This whole thread is an example of that; the "legitimate" version of some game now refuses to run on Linux (they may fix this game, but others are permanently intentionally broken, and e.g. VOD streamers do similar things with their 4k streams, so it's the general principle that's interesting). Typically, this is an artificial limitation, and pirated versions work just fine or better. Regardless of the existence of the version that does work, you're not going to buy something that doesn't. Then, having already decided that, you have a separate question of whether to receive a thing that does work as a gift from someone else. > nobody is entitled to a developer's game, an actor's movie, a writer's book Sure, but if someone is willing to share it with you, then I'm still not seeing a reason why you wouldn't be "entitled" to accept it. I'm not seeing where the moral necessity for the author's approval comes in; they obviously didn't want anything to do with you, so they're not in the picture. What entitles the author to be upset when someone they didn't want as a customer anyway gets a copy of their work? Where does the author get the right to say that no one else can give it to them? Fundamentally, I don't see a natural right to claim "I came up with that; everyone else needs to ask my permission to use it". We can create artificial rights to design economic incentives, but if someone doesn't even want your money, then why care about the artificial right? > as I pointed out originally there are more games (not to mention other forms of entertainment) out there than there is time to play them Sure, but art isn't fungible, and there are social aspects. Maybe someone isn't interested in Call of Duty 15, or any video game really, but all of their friends are talking about Monster Hunter Rise, so they want to be part of that. They can't buy it since the publisher decided to exclude them as a customer. I still see no reason in such a case why it would be immoral for someone to give them a copy that's been modified to work. They could go do something else, but why is it the case that they ought to do something else if it makes no difference to anybody but them? Doesn't that seem controlling?