robbery

Even though it's fun and it's not lacking? Just watching it doesn't hurt them.
I'm supposed to let them know, but until then?

Stealing in order to return is also forbidden. There is no disadvantage to the owner there either. Although some have taken it as just a rabbinical practice.
But here it is not even in order to return. In my article on intellectual property I wrote that taking information is a prohibition of theft, and I explained that information has value only if it is unique, and therefore anyone who takes it has damaged the value of the information.

Does this mean that the halakhic rule that the mere use of another person's property, even though it is at their discretion, is forbidden?
Because I informed them, and it has not yet been revoked.

And what about hacked apps on Telegram, like Spotify?

I didn't understand what's unclear here. If someone leaves the door of their house open, are you allowed to enter and take their things? They left the door open and you enter and take things from there without permission. If you want to watch – please pay.
Telegram even if you pay is forbidden to use. It's a gathering of thieves.

There's no resemblance, in the example you gave it's a complete rip-off, in the case of Didi it doesn't cost them anything, in addition to the fact that I informed them that the subscription wasn't canceled and they didn't do anything about it, so maybe it's their responsibility.

What about watching movies on Telegram, apparently the ban is on distribution, my viewing of the distributed material no longer takes away anything, is this allowed, especially since it is already a small part of the ocean, the owner is aware of the distribution of the material, which is happening to all movies today, is this allowed?
Thank you very much for your time.

Mikhi, over 20 years ago (when you were more Haredi or less secular or between religious and Haredi, you choose how to define yourself because the public is confused) you gave a class in Bnei Brak and made a whole fuss about it being forbidden under the prohibition of plagiarism and you wanted to base it on some kind of rite.

David, I answered everything. Yam's Zotto claim is irrelevant here, because it is not a use of the same thing.
Each viewing is something different. And because he ate garlic, he will come back and eat…

Too bad, indeed. I don't think there was any merit there. I referred here to my article on intellectual property, and there I explain it.