Piracy is commonly defined as the theft of intellectual property and is classified as such by many anti-piracy associations and companies.However, according to an investigation by the Harvard University Law School, carried out among 50 lawyers from the prestigious entity, it is shown that, today, the downloading and transmission of pirated content of the pirate IPTV type is widely tolerated and even supported by some.This study tries to show how legal experts view current copyright regulations and the acceptance of digital piracy.Additionally, they were asked for their thoughts on the future of copyright, considering there needs to be a paradigm shift where entertainment providers focus more on convenience, accessibility, and affordability.This study, published in the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, demonstrates that, contrary to popular belief that lawyers have the narrowest view of the law, legal professionals actually lean heavily toward narrower views. positive about digital exchange.When asked if "piracy is theft", the majority of interviewees refuted this statement, showing tolerance with these practices: "Our study reveals that legal professionals, with high standards of professional ethics and expectations of behavior respectful of the law, a well-above-average understanding of the law, and a higher-than-average socioeconomic status, do not equate digital hacking with physical theft, and are generally very tolerant or tolerant.even supporting him.”The fact that hackers are not criminals, but from all kinds of professions, including lawyers and police officers, makes the matter less serious from a legal point of view.Of the 50 lawyers who were interviewed, only three believed that downloading or transmitting digital content from pirate sources is absolutely illegal and unacceptable.And even those three wouldn't report their friends' actions: "If I had to call the police when someone watches pirated movies, I wouldn't have any friends."In these interviews, two main justifications are extracted that legitimize —or at least explain why people do it— piracy.For example, the availability of legal content is an important factor in how these lawyers view piracy.When there is no option to consume content legally, they see piracy as fair, even to themselves.“If for some reason there is a restriction, I think it is fair that you download illegally or use VPN to access the content.I don't believe in geographic restrictions on the Internet."The other important factor is cost.If something is considered too expensive, these interviewees generally validate piracy as an alternative: “Two hundred dollars [for an academic textbook] is absolutely crazy.If there was a chance that someone would sell it pirated, I would buy pirated."Especially for academic and educational books, respondents indicated that access to knowledge should be free and unrestricted.That argument outweighs the law, in this case.Where they are not so tolerant is in downloading pirated software, especially if it is used for commercial purposes.With all these assessments of the investigation, from which we have only extracted a few statements within a much broader context of conversation, the general conclusion is that most Harvard lawyers do not see piracy as something problematic by definition.It is believed that strict laws do not help and it is the content creators and publishers who should find ways to change their businesses.“Industries that best adapt to the needs and perceptions of society will win the race to establish new, effective and yet widely accepted and sustainable business models,” they add.