The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization defines piracy from a modern international law standpoint thus:
Piracy is a maritime act of armed robbery, criminal violence or other depredation at sea [including kidnap, blockades/sieges, and ransom-taking] that is not associated with official governmental action. [...] The renowned English jurist Sir William Blackstone wrote that the crime of piracy or robbery and depredation upon the high seas was an offense against the universal laws of civilized society – what we refer to today as “international law” (Blackstone & Wendell 1850). Having renounced all the norms and mores of human progress and enlightened government, pirates were considered by the common law to have reverted to a “savage state of nature” – and their criminal enterprise was held to be tantamount to declaring war against mankind.[...]
The word “pirate” is derived from the Latin word pirate, which itself is derivative of transire, a transeundo mare, which signified a maritime knight or an admiral or commander at sea. Pirata means “to attempt” or “to attack.” [...] Like the word “Viking,” the word “piracy” denotes not just criminal marauding, but a way of life.
[...]
Importantly, for legal purposes, “piracy” occurs beyond the 12 nautical-mile territorial sea; the same illegal conduct occurring landward of the 12 nautical-mile mark – inside the territorial sea or the internal waters of a coastal state – constitutes “armed robbery at sea.” “Armed robbery at sea” is not an international crime, but may be a criminal offense to be punished under the laws of the coastal state.
Note the importance of whether these acts are sanctioned by any nation-state. When discussing definitions of piracy, it is crucial to note that some pirates were privateers, ie, they were actually commissioned by, pardoned by, and usually sharing thir plunder with, a sovereign state. This was, up until the 19th century, a major tactic in building the presence and stability of a nation on the international stage; Elizabeth I of England took her nation from a tiny island often on the defensive from other European states to a naval power to be reckoned with this way; and Alexander Hamilton, recognizing both the need for sovereignty in the newly-independent United States's merchant shipping lanes and the fact that we were broke and needed any income we could get our hands on, authorized any private American vessel to raid British merchant ships in US waters as privateers. Peter Lehr, in his book Pirates : a new history, from Vikings to Somali raiders, notes that there has always been "grey space" and quite a lot of overlap between piracy and privateering, which creates plausible deniability for the privateers, the states backing them, pirates claiming justification for their dubious acts, any attempts at bringing any of these parties to legal justice. This is a feature of the concept of privateering, not a bug, and is part of why privateering is no longer permitted by international law.
Here, I'm talking about historical pirates--that is, pirates up until the 1850s, when [x thing Lehr talks about] happened--who traveled by sea. (At some point I might make a page for other famous criminals, and that would include highway robbers, but for now I'm focusing on sea pirates.) I'm excluding groups who made piracy a way of life for their whole culture--so I'm leaving out, for example, the Vikings--and focusing on individuals or those who operated in groups of loose affiliations based on chosen alliances. Their primary goal was theft of property, although this might have been part of a bigger goal--nationalistic terrorism, enriching someone else's coffers as a privateer, or a personal vendetta of some kind--and they often used violence to lend credence to their threats. Sometimes they also had other political or personal interests that might influence their targets or methods, but for the most part, stealing gold and goods was either the end goal itself or the means to it.
To be clear, this usage was a calculated branding by corporate media in public campaigns to make their loss of money seem like a moral weakness on the part of heartless thieves who either didn't understand the dire ramifications of what they were doing or didn't care. In the early 2000s, people scoffed at how ridiculous the term sounded, and there was legitimate discourse in academia, journalism, and social commentary about labelling it this way, but we seem to have incorporated it into our common vernacular by now; by the late 2000s, people who had grown up downloading MP3 files on Kazaa or Limewire were throwing around phrases like "I don't want to give these people my money, I'll probably just pirate it and watch it for teh lulz" (aka, "for the lolz", "for the laughs"). There's a solid argument to be made for this framing contributing to the following generation believing that paying to consume a piece of media is a signifier that a given member of the audience endorses the ideas portrayed therein or supports the artists or creators involved in the making of the media...which presently has several harmful implications.
Similarly, calling people who steal mail and packages off one's unattended doorstep "pirates" has been a marketing tactic, essentially to sell Amazon Ring door cameras. Yes, one company, by being clever about their marketing, can influence popular vernacular, and if you don't believe that,start from the cultural influence and work of "The Father of Public Relations", Edward Bernays, and the overlap between the advertising industries and political messaging, then recall the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit smear campaign or the gay wedding cake baker lawsuit.
Hover your mouse over a word to see it's definition (it saves a lot of page space, honestly).
Something that drives me crazy about the books I'm reading is when they tell me what kind of ship someone's sailing and expect me, a 21st-century landlubber, to already know what it means. And what kind of boat someone used was important, as it signified not only where they were from (a Chinese junk was recognizable and was distinct from, for instance, a Dutch caravel) but how they could move in the water or make use of the wind...and therefore what purpose a ship served. A Spanish galleon was a massive floating fortress built for hauling goods--specifically, treasure--and therefore was a slow-moving, easy target and needed to be defended by other ships by moving with it in a fleet. Seeing a galleon on the horizon meant a pirate was about to make bank, as long as they could beat the defending ships surrounding it. On the other hand, a small sloop, a quicker vessel meant more for movement than hauling cargo, could just belong to a poor crew of fishermen, or it could have rich passengers aboard with pockets full of gold and trinkets, and maybe some interesting news to beat or threaten out of them, making moving in on a sloop less of a sure bet.
This section is a gallery of galleys, if you will (har har). Click a title or picture to find out what kind of boat might be sailed in different circumstances...so we can both can make sense of all the nautical gobbledegook!