Examining The Ethics of Media Consumption and Sharing
Sun 01 February 2026
One of my new fedifriends, Terminal Tilt recently posted:
We should not call sharing "piracy."
Piracy involves the physical theft of property where the original owner no longer has it. Sharing is an act of duplication, not subtraction.
Language matters. Using the industry's preferred labels only helps reinforce their control over how we view digital ownership.
#FOSS #DigitalRights #Copyright #Copyleft #OpenSource #TerminalTilt
Let's first separate the issues of paying media companies from the issue of how media is now consumed (and the collateral damage thereof).
To examine the latter issue, let's pretend that all of the streaming services are free, and that the various studios and companies make no money off of them. That all you have to do is install Disney+, Apple TV, Hulu, Netflix, and/or HBO and others and view all of the media your heart desires. Even though it would be monetarily free, it would still come at a cost. The media companies use their streaming services as a data collection source. The media delivery companies like Roku, Google, and Apple also use your viewing habits to sell ads. You are being monetized, whether you're paying or not. It would be greatly preferable to avoid taking part in such a privacy shell-game. To that end, many people are getting back into optical media and personal media management systems like Jellyfin, just to avoid the privacy loss and annoyances of modern streaming services.
Now for the more direct financial issues. Buying media directly from its producers (whether through streaming services or purchasing new physical media) directly benefits the producers of the media. In a perfect world, this is the perfect system! You pay to purchase or view media that you enjoy, and your payment goes to create more media for your continued enjoyment. The earnings from such endeavors benefits all those involved: producers, directors, actors, special effects artists, etc.
That's not the world we live in, sadly. The greatest benefit from the profits of media creation goes to the megacorporations producing it, then secondarily to big-name stars in the productions, then to lesser-known actors, special effects artists, gaffers, stage hands, prop builders, and so on down the line. The work of creating visual art is not very financially rewarding for most people involved in it. But that in itself is not much of a reason to want to "starve" Hollywood of your patronage. But there is a very solid reason to do so now:
- Last July, CBS announced that The Late Show would be canceled, amid rumors of a deal with Donald Trump.
- Last September, we saw the Disney company suspend the Jimmy Kimmel show because of an acerbic comment he made regarding perceived politicizing in the wake of the Charlie Kirk assassination. They later relented after a public backlash and three million Disney+ customers cancelling their membership.
- Just two days ago Amazon MGM Studios released a 104-minute infomercial for American Fascism called "Melania." This was pitched by Jeff Bezos personally to Trump at Mar-a-Lago in 2024.
It is clear that the major media companies are in full cooperation with fascism, and it is ethically reprehensible to give any of these companies a single dime.
What that leaves us with (as is so often the case) is a field of choices, none of which are all that particularly great, and absolutely none of which are easy:
- Try to use streaming services like PBS, Kanopy, or Nebula that aren't directly tied to these inhuman media conglomerates
- Buy used physical media (so you're not directly benefiting the conglomerates), and do your best to make sure the media is genuine (there are a lot of bootleg DVDs and Blurays sold as genuine new and used on eBay)
- Just read a dang book and forget media altogether
- "Piracy"
Now we get to the original question that prompted this treatise. What is "piracy" and when is it justifiable?
Like so many things, the victor writes not only the history books, but the dictionary itself. What is piracy? Why is it called that? What is wrong with just sharing with your friends?
I won't pretend that these aren't ethically muddy waters. I don't really care if multi-millionare A-listers get paid. I do care that the likes of Disney and Amazon do not get paid. I do want the "little guys" to get a paycheck, though. (And I'm still quite salty about Rhythm & Hues, but that's another matter altogether.)
I think only a total corporate suckup would object to someone lending a friend a legitimately purchased physical copy of a movie. That is obviously justifiable. But what about sharing your personal media collection on Jellyfin or Plex? Or what about sharing your Netflix password (back when that was a viable thing)? Finally, what about just downloading a movie on thepiratebay? Is it "sharing" if you're sharing with a thousand anonymous users over the internet? Or is that just straight-up distribution, and unauthorized, at that?
Obviously, I don't have easy answers for any of that. Personally, I tend to be a rule-follower, even to a fault. But lately, the question isn't a financial one. I don't care about the $12 per month (or however much) to get on a streaming service. I care about that $12 going into the pockets of someone who doesn't bat an eyelash at the horrible things going on in the world around me, and who see fit to use their incredible financial power to make things worse, rather than better.
I can't be a party to that, and I don't think you want to, either.
📀?
🏴☠️?
🤷♂️
Category: Ethics Tagged: Entertainment Ethics Life Non-religious post Non-technical post Philosophy Polemic Video
Modified image of a stack of thinkpads taken originally from https://old.reddit.com/r/thinkpad/comments/17xf8kl/my_thinkpad_stack/