[bitwize]

No, he's still a pirate.

If he doesn't like what the distributor releases, he shouldn't watch the movie or show at all. Paying for a legitimate copy does not grant you infinite legal or moral use of the work, only permission to view the version of the work provided under terms set by the OWNER of the work.

[inigyou]

If that's what you actually believe, it's either because you have financial ties to the owners, or you are in the authority-obeying Kohlberg stage. There is no simple universal answer to whether piracy is moral. It is easy to argue that giving money to rich corporations who fuck everything up is worse than not giving them money.

[nearlyepic]

Here’s an idea: some suit in an office somewhere doesn’t get to dictate how I engage with art. My moral obligation ends where the people who made the movie get paid.

[matheusmoreira]

Nobody cares about the owner's "terms".

The whole point of this thread is the fact the owners keep getting outcompeted by a bunch of pirates precisely because of those idiotic "terms" nobody really cares about. The more "terms" they add, the more their product sucks. No one wants to read a dozen pages of legal boilerplate just to have a shitty experience watching some film. Thanks to piracy, they don't have to.

Literal rent seeking monopolists don't get to preach about morals either. Knock copyright duration all the way back to 20 years and maybe the monopoly becomes tolerable enough for us to listen to the plight of creators.