Ill add another question here, and Id be happy if the Rabbi would answer:
Spotify as a company has suffered from the distribution of a cracked software version since its founding.

In 2018 there was, for the first time, an attempt to block cracked users. But the situation in which the software is distributed in cracked form and can be obtained through any Google search continues to this day.

This is puzzling, because blocking the use of cracked software should not be especially complicated.

In addition, when I contacted the company and asked how it acts to prevent the distribution of cracked software, I was told that when the company receives a report about the distribution of cracked software, it tries to take it down.

In practice, this claim does not stand the test of reality, since a quick Google search leads to dozens of relevant results. It should be emphasized that the company ought to have all the tools needed to deal with this problem, and there is no oppressed party here that must be rescuedand as mentioned above, in the past they even took actionbut since then it seems that this has been abandoned.

So the question is this: if the company, according to the reality presented here (and assuming this really is the reality), does not act at all to prevent others from stealing from it, and stands by and does almost nothing to prevent it, is it still forbidden to use the cracked software? Seemingly theft is still theft, but the situation looks ridiculous.

This can be compared to a case where at a bookstall with a sign above it saying “Books are for payment only,” someone stands next to the seller and offers the books free of charge to buyers
The seller stands by, and when asked why he does nothing to prevent it, he turns to the person and asks him to leavethe person does not respond. When the seller is offered the option of reporting it to the police, he refuses. And this repeats itself day after day. (In that case, is it forbidden to take the book from the thief?)

(To complete the picturethough this does not determine the questionit seems that the company has an interest in allowing cracked use, since the damage it causes is smaller than the profit. The company apparently gains more users, which increase the popularity of the software and the number of users, than it loses paying customers.)

If it was cracked illegally, there is no permission to use it without authorization. It has nothing to do with how much effort is being made to block it. The speculations about the companys interest are also irrelevant.

With respect, I didnt understand the Rabbis answer.
If the assumptions about the companys interests are correct, then seemingly this is a case where it is agreeable to themand then seemingly it would be permitted.

Or if we return to the example of the bookstall: in a situation where the owner is not particular about itbecause his actions show that he is not particular about itthen seemingly this is not theft (according to Tosafot on Kiddushin 40b).
As the Mahaneh Ephraim writes:
“Regarding one who eats in the marketplace being disqualified from testimony, where Rabbeinu Hananel explained that this refers to someone who snatches from others and eats, Tosafot asked: if so, let him already be disqualified because he is a thief. And they answered that it refers to something about which the owner is not particular. It is clear that anything that a person is not accustomed to be particular about is not called theft.”

You cannot determine what the company thinks. It stated what it thinks, and everything else is just unspoken assumptions. By the same token, I could steal something from you on the claim that you love me and therefore surely want me to enjoy it.
Assessments of what a person or a company thinks cannot replace what they explicitly say.