https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...3fac625905.jpg

Not sure why you are specifically responding to me, as the first post already included watching movies for 'free', which is by definition illegal. But sure, I'll bite.

Theft and piracy (copyright infringement) are not the same. I'll be the last one to argue that piracy is a victimless crime, but I do think the ethics of it are significantly different. I'd rather not derail this specific thread by discussing it. If you want to discuss it further, open a new thread and I'll happily contribute to it.

If you're interested in some reading, I can recommend Thirteen Ways to Steal a Bicycle, which discusses how our legal and moral framework in regards to what is considered theft have shifted over time.

Moral relativism. It's the "as long as I get mine" theory of right and wrong.

The good news is you get what you want.
The bad news is you're taking something from someone who's created it as their livelihood without paying for it. They obviously weren't giving it away out of kindness. They obviously intended for everyone who viewed it to bear a portion of the cost of its production and eventual profit.

Not being willing to admit that it's theft doesn't mean it's not theft. It just means you aren't willing to admit that it's theft. I have things that I did not pay for. Therefore I have no right to them. I have taken them without paying for them. It is immoral and I have done it. I own up to it.

Like I said, I'll be the last one to claim it's a victimless crime. It is a copyright infringement crime. Just like taping a TV show to watch it later and skipping ads is, like my grandmother still does with her VCR.

Not every form of income deprivation is theft. Bunching all different sorts of crimes under the misnomer 'Theft' flattens moral distinctions. Which is exactly what the book I linked above is about. I'm not going to paraphrase a 400 page critique by a professor of law, but I did find an article of his which includes some aspects of his thinking here. I can definitely recommend the book.

Off topic but within the thread... and not to pile on you but your grandmother, so long as she recorded the show in a legal manner, has every right to skip the ads. Universal Studios vs. Sony Corporation of America. To try and make one "ok" by comparing it to the other is a bit of a stretch don't you think?

I'm sorry, not very familiar with US law. In the US it might be different than here (Netherlands). Apologies if the example wasn't a good one. Don't think it changes my point though. Copyright infringement is not the same as theft.

Also, nowhere I'm stating that it is OK. I'm just saying it's not theft, but another crime.

IMHO, just watching movies for personal consumption is not a crime or theft. Downloading it and saving it to a PC is a crime/theft. You can't download movies onto a Firestik or FireTV, not enough space. Why would you anyway?