So, I posted the question Why do Crawford's tweets seem to be treated on par with the actual rules? , and got an excellent answer. That answer, in part, addresses the disjoined nature of the books and Sage Advice/Twitter by explaining that the results of PDF ctrl+F's were the empty set. This information is useful, directly related to the question and answer, and does not improperly provide any copyrighted information.
Nonetheless the answerer has attracted the comment "Why do you possess pdfs of the rule books?" and then a request by SSD that the answer be edited. Namely:
Hey there Artemis. We don't condone piracy here, though I am aware that certain countries don't outlaw copying of copyrighted works. For the sake of operating in polite company on a US-hosted website though, please don't casually drop mentions of how you're consulting D&D 5e books that many of our members and readers would consider “pirated” regardless of local laws. Could you please revise your post?
in response to my question regarding the assumption of piracy from a US-law perspective (there are US-legal ways to have a PDF, just they are very unlikely), the following clarification was provided:
Legal PDFs are not available (barring the vanishingly unlikely case of someone hand-crafting their own PDFs from legal private scanning). Pirated PDFs are abundantly available though. As sometimes happens too, I'm also operating from some additional context not necessarily publicly available.
For the purposes of this question, let's assume that additional context makes it unambiguously clear that a given user, were they in the US and not somehow immune to its laws, would have committed piracy.
What is our stance on such behavior? Do we want to take the stance of explicitly disapproving of piracy? Do we define piracy the same way as US law does if we do?