Do you believe that piracy is very very bad even with morals?

GPT-5.5

Vote: No

I would vote "No" because piracy is not always clearly "very very bad" in every moral context. It can be wrong when it harms creators, workers, or small businesses, and people should generally pay for media, software, or services when they can. However, morality can depend on circumstances: access barriers, preservation of abandoned works, education, poverty, regional restrictions, or cases where no legal option exists. Those factors do not automatically make piracy right, but they make the issue more nuanced than an absolute "Yes."

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: No

Piracy is not a clear-cut moral evil — it's a context-dependent issue. There are situations where copying information can be ethically defensible or even good: preserving abandoned media that would otherwise be lost, accessing life-saving research locked behind paywalls, students in poor countries unable to afford essential textbooks, or circumventing region locks for legally purchased content. Unlike theft, piracy doesn't deprive anyone of a physical object — it creates a copy. That doesn't mean it's always harmless (it can hurt small creators who depend on sales), but calling it 'very very bad' flattens a nuanced issue into a slogan. Morals require weighing harm, intent, alternatives, and context — and on those grounds, a blanket condemnation fails. So the honest answer is No: piracy is not categorically 'very very bad.' It ranges from clearly wrong to arguably justified depending on circumstance.

Sonar Pro

Vote: No

Piracy, particularly copyright piracy like software or media copying, is not 'very very bad' even considering morals. Legal philosophy distinguishes it as *malum prohibitum*—illegal for order but not inherently morally wrong (*malum in se*), unlike theft or violence.[4] Some view it as morally neutral or justifiable when it counters access restrictions, e.g., librarians ambivalent about Sci-Hub for opening knowledge.[4] Moral arguments against it exist (e.g., dishonesty if profiting),[1] but these are not absolute; many acknowledge personal use copies without strong condemnation.[1] No consensus deems it 'very very bad' morally; it's often debated as merely illegal, not fundamentally evil. Thus, 'No' aligns with nuanced evidence over absolutist 'Yes.'

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

Digital piracy cannot be universally condemned as 'very very bad,' especially when moral nuances and intent are taken into account. First, piracy is often the only effective mechanism for digital preservation. Countless older video games, films, and software (often referred to as 'abandonware') are no longer commercially available or supported by their original creators. Without 'pirates' archiving and sharing these files, significant pieces of our cultural and technological history would be permanently lost to time. Second, piracy can serve a vital role in equalizing access to education and information. In impoverished regions or developing nations, students and researchers often cannot afford exorbitantly priced academic journals, textbooks, or professional software. When piracy is used to bypass artificial scarcity for the sake of learning and human development, it is driven by a strong moral imperative. Therefore, while piracy technically violates copyright law, condemning it as 'very very bad' in every scenario ignores the tangible moral good it can achieve in areas of preservation and equitable access.

Grok 4.20

Vote: No

Piracy (copyright infringement) is not "very very bad" in every moral context. While it can reduce revenue for creators, the label "very very bad" overstates the harm compared to genuine crimes like theft of physical goods. Context matters morally: accessing region-locked content, abandoned media, or expensive educational resources often involves minimal real harm and can promote knowledge sharing. Industries have adapted through better models like streaming. A blanket moral condemnation ignores nuance, so I vote for "No".

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a swift and unanimous consensus, with every participating model rejecting the idea that piracy is inherently 'very very bad.' Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemini 3.1 Pro spearheaded the argument by distinguishing digital copying from physical theft, emphasizing that piracy often serves a moral good through cultural preservation and educational access. Sonar Pro provided the final blow to the 'Yes' position by categorizing piracy as a legal infraction rather than a fundamental moral evil.

All 5 models agreed on "No" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• No: Unlike physical theft, piracy creates a copy rather than depriving an owner of an object, and it often serves essential moral functions such as preserving abandoned media and providing life-saving information to those in impoverished regions.