Ethics and Piracy

[Whaleboy]

This is a thread on Ektopos, a philosophy forum that I'm a member of, where we are discussing the piracy issue.

The first two posts seem to be pretty opposed and illustrative, the latter (BenElijah) is mine.

Link

Post 1:

I've generally moved through life with the impression that stealing is somehow wrong. I don’t just mean wrong legally, but wrong in a moral sense. So I’m still somewhat surprised by what strikes me as theft by people I generally wouldn’t expect to be thieves. To come to the point I’m talking about people that pirate commercially produced music and films. The common sentiment I often hear is, “Well everyone’s doing it!” Of course all the philosophers recognize the fallacy here. I was recently surprised by a philosophy professor who asked if I’d burn him a copy of a music CD. He was actually surprised at my refusal, which may say something about his opinion of my character. So I’m wondering if other people see an ethical problem here, or is there someway we can justify such stealing?

Post2:

Its an interesting situation. I personally see it in two ways. Firstly, stealing means that you are taking the resources of another for yourself, and they are losing because of it. So in other words, you are directly depleting their finite resources. However, in terms of digital information, text, music, movies, images and the like, this is a resource that is for all intents and purposes infinite, the only expense being hard disk space, processor time, memory and bandwidth etc. I can make a copy of a 6 megabyte music file, send it to a friend, and he has the music but I have not lost out in the process. This is not an argument about bandwidth of course .

This leaves the anti-filesharers with one alternative, that those who are sharing copied files are erroneously accessing private information, for example, like trespassing. However, while that may hold water if one has hacking into ones computer and extracting a copy of the files, since the record company in the first place puts the information into the public domain, via cd's, dvd's etc, this cannot hold water as it is already up for public distribution. Trying to control that is like trying to hold back the tide with a bucket and spade. I am aware that the implications of this are that the notion of copyright becomes void, yet even as an author myself I have no problem with this, since people would rather buy a book on paper than view it on screen, and cd music is of higher quality and more convenience (plus the opportunity to include merchandise). I think that the record companies see a threat to their business's and don't want to undergo a painful evolution. However, the world of business is such that you either evolve or die.

You may say that the author or owners of that information have a right to control that information when it is public but I maintain that is flawed. You place it in the public domain, and that information is emancipated from you, wherein your only concern is providing the material means for its distribution. Since that is irrelevant here, I can claim that the entire publishing industry in its many incarnations have been living on borrowed time since the 15th/16th century, waiting for a means of replication and distribution that undermines material concerns of paper and time etc. We have that means with affordable personal computing now.

I see no ethical problem with me copying music files, both receiving and distributing them. As a matter of fact, I have 15 downloading now and 6 outgoing!

My position is difficult but I cannot really refute it, except in its extremism, but then, thats a term and idea I generally ignore for ambiguity. Thoughts?

[Gibsie]

All I have to say on piracy is that if I hadn't installed an essentially pirate copy of Civ 2 all those years ago, I wouldn't have bought Fantastic Worlds, Multiplayer Gold Edition, Call to Power 1 + 2, Civilization 3 or Conquests.

Plus I'd have never met any of you skanks. ergo piracy is bad.

[Japher]

Piracy IS wrong because it IS illegal. The real question, however, is should it be illegal? With the evolution the information super highway times have changed, laws have been made to cover it, and commisions have grown to monitor it... Yet, has any law that DID exist been changed because of it?

The US Postal Service saw massive cuts in revenue once ppl started e-mailing. Did they sue? Could the? They tried to tax e-mails, but that got slammed.

The thing is, there is a technology available at our finger tips and we are not allowed to use. Not only that, but if we do we get the law on our cases, and those who made the technology available don't get any blame.

Times have changed. The RIAA didn't. The laws should change to reflect this.

END OF STORY

[SlowwHand]

Speaking of RIAA, is it worse ethically to d/l a couple of songs of many different artists, or d/l whole albums?
Or is there no difference?

BTW, http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?...42&cid=8046366

[Sava]

Originally posted by Japher
Piracy IS wrong because it IS illegal.

I don't think law=morality... look at our drug laws... smoking marijuana is illegal, but it's not wrong. Nor is file-sharing.

The real question, however, is should it be illegal?

No it shouldn't. Piracy = selling copied software. Copying files from a computer, no matter the content, is not stealing, nor is it piracy.

Times have changed. The RIAA didn't.

exactly... the RIAA and the companies it represents are "losing" money for two reasons. One, people aren't willing to pay for the **** they sell. Two, they failed to adapt to a changing marketplace. It's pathetic, that in response to their own ineptitude and failures, that they are lashing out and suing 12 year olds.

[Japher]

IMO, it is a moral decision to knowingly violate the law. As morals are a personal issue I am not able to speak for everyone. The moral thing to do, once again IMO, is to seek alternatives and/or change the law so that it is not being violated.

I didn't say Piracy should be legal, or at least I didn't mean it, I meant should file-sharing be legal, and not considered piracy? We are brought up being told to learn to share... man, we really over did that one

At least we agree that the RIAA is crap.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Japher
IMO, it is a moral decision to knowingly violate the law. As morals are a personal issue I am not able to speak for everyone. The moral thing to do, once again IMO, is to seek alternatives and/or change the law so that it is not being violated.

well some people have a grander sense of morality... I respect the law... as long is the law is just. Hence, I don't respect drug laws because they are unjust. Respecting "the law" just because it is "the law" is stupid.

I didn't say Piracy should be legal, or at least I didn't mean it, I meant should file-sharing be legal, and not considered piracy? We are brought up being told to learn to share... man, we really over did that one

I think piracy should be illegal. I just don't consider file-sharing to be piracy. I think we agree... but I'm not sure... because I'm stupid and confused.

At least we agree that the RIAA is crap.

[Whaleboy]

Speaking of RIAA, is it worse ethically to d/l a couple of songs of many different artists, or d/l whole albums?
Or is there no difference?

No difference. No discernable logical barrier.

I don't think law=morality... look at our drug laws... smoking marijuana is illegal, but it's not wrong. Nor is file-sharing.

Agreed. Most assuredly agreed.

What did people think about my two points; (i) that business that do not evolve to new external conditions die out, and I won't shed tears over their laziness, and (ii) that the publishing industry has been living on borrowed time since they first started... waiting for a means of cheap and fast replication in everyone's homes? It just means competition.

I think an alternative for the record companies is cheaper albums, because £14 is far too much, and an excessive profit, even after marketting, royalties, cost of production, recording, mastering etc etc. They should also bundle merchandise with them, because the record companies make a hell of a lot more profit on that.

Sava is

[debeest]

Wow. I'm surprised at the sense of entitlement some people feel. "The technology for me to steal it exists, so I'm entitled to steal it."

Personally, I walk a fine line on theft of intellectual property. If I would buy something if it weren't possible to steal it, I feel I should buy it; otherwise it's stealing. If I wouldn't have bought it, then stealing it does seem like it's a gain for me that harms no one else.

Pretty tricky path to walk, so I have to be careful in judging whether I would have bought it or not. But it seems like a morally defensible position.

[Japher]

I think we agree... but I'm not sure... because I'm stupid and confused.

We do agree...

What did people think about my two points; (i) that business that do not evolve to new external conditions die out, and I won't shed tears over their laziness, and (ii) that the publishing industry has been living on borrowed time since they first started... waiting for a means of cheap and fast replication in everyone's homes? It just means competition.

on the law=morality, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Yes, the should bundle merchandise and lower the cost of CDs. Or they should try and put better copywrite protection on their stuff, but as we have learned, they are too stupid to do that. Besides, someone will always find a way. The best rout is to admit defeat, and address the problem at the source; them[RIAA] selves.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Japher
IMO, it is a moral decision to knowingly violate the law. As morals are a personal issue I am not able to speak for everyone. The moral thing to do, once again IMO, is to seek alternatives and/or change the law so that it is not being violated.

well some people have a grander sense of morality... I respect the law... as long is the law is just. Hence, I don't respect drug laws because they are unjust. Respecting "the law" just because it is "the law" is stupid.

I didn't say Piracy should be legal, or at least I didn't mean it, I meant should file-sharing be legal, and not considered piracy? We are brought up being told to learn to share... man, we really over did that one

I think piracy should be illegal. I just don't consider file-sharing to be piracy. I think we agree... but I'm not sure... because I'm stupid and confused.

At least we agree that the RIAA is crap.

[Whaleboy]

Speaking of RIAA, is it worse ethically to d/l a couple of songs of many different artists, or d/l whole albums?
Or is there no difference?

No difference. No discernable logical barrier.

I don't think law=morality... look at our drug laws... smoking marijuana is illegal, but it's not wrong. Nor is file-sharing.

Agreed. Most assuredly agreed.

What did people think about my two points; (i) that business that do not evolve to new external conditions die out, and I won't shed tears over their laziness, and (ii) that the publishing industry has been living on borrowed time since they first started... waiting for a means of cheap and fast replication in everyone's homes? It just means competition.

I think an alternative for the record companies is cheaper albums, because £14 is far too much, and an excessive profit, even after marketting, royalties, cost of production, recording, mastering etc etc. They should also bundle merchandise with them, because the record companies make a hell of a lot more profit on that.

Sava is

[Ben Kenobi]

Whaleboy:

However, in terms of digital information, text, music, movies, images and the like, this is a resource that is for all intents and purposes infinite, the only expense being hard disk space, processor time, memory and bandwidth

I am a writer. I write for a variety of folks, in a variety of genres and for a variety of purposes. This resource, my creativity is not infinite. Though what I write may be distributed to everyone, the resource is not infinite.

This is the same problem with music. What people have worked on and written, that is a limited resource as well. What you are doing by filesharing is exploiting the artist, by not giving him proper compensation for the use of this resource, his creativity.

Now, in my case, most of what I write does not belong to me, in that I freely distribute it to interested parties because to charge, would hinder the influence, in that people might want to read what I have to say, they do not want to pay for it. That is my right, as a writer to decline compensation.

Now, should I change my mind, that would also be my right, since the resource, my creativity, still belongs to me.

[debeest]

Mysterious double post.

[Solver]

File sharing isn't piracy, but piracy can happen through fire sharing. If what you're downloading over p2p is copyrighted content, you're committing piracy.

The idea of piracy being morally OK because software is not a material thing is one of the common reasons for piracy in ex-USSR territory, where people aren't really used to seeing intellectual property as something having value. The other factor being the costs of software larger than 100 USD not being something that an average citizen can afford.

An interesting answer from many, many pirates. They feel stealing is wrong, they don't feel stealing software is stealing. Let them into a PC store, give them a 100% guarantee they wouldn't be caught if stealing. Still, most wouldn't just take software from the shelf, because it's in a big nice box there, and feels like a material object, and that's where the "stealing is wrong" moral part kicks in. However, an immaterial object is stolen without moral remorse.

[St Leo]

An interesting answer from many, many pirates. They feel stealing is wrong, they don't feel stealing software is stealing. Let them into a PC store, give them a 100% guarantee they wouldn't be caught if stealing. Still, most wouldn't just take software from the shelf, because it's in a big nice box there, and feels like a material object, and that's where the "stealing is wrong" moral part kicks in. However, an immaterial object is stolen without moral remorse.

You cannot steal an immaterial object. Legislation agrees with me and dictionaries agree with me.

Of course, that opinion was what you were driving at with your post.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

What did people think about my two points; (i) that business that do not evolve to new external conditions die out, and I won't shed tears over their laziness, and (ii) that the publishing industry has been living on borrowed time since they first started... waiting for a means of cheap and fast replication in everyone's homes? It just means competition.

I agree with these points, however I don't see how they rationalize software/music piracy.

I don't see a difference between physically taking something from a store and downloading songs from kazaa. I believe that a man is worth what he contributes to society, in whatever form. And I believe that man should be properly compensated (whatever that means ) for what he has created. I view it as an immoral act to not compensate an artist or a programmer for what he has created, so long as he seeks compensation for his work.

[DaShi]

Come ****ing on! You guys know that you're getting something free (or extremely cheap) that you should be paying for. Saying anything is just bollucks.

[Japher]

Why should we be paying for it? There is only 1 RIAA, monopoly?

I would like to see artists record directly to the internet, for this purpose. The artists would rather their music be free and more people listen to it, so they can go to the shows... where they make their real money.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by DaShi
Come ****ing on! You guys know that you're getting something free (or extremely cheap) that you should be paying for. Saying anything is just bollucks.

No, we are not.

[DaShi]

**** off. You know when you're stealin' and when you're not. Just admit to it. I don't ****ing care what you do.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Sava
I don't think law=morality... look at our drug laws... smoking marijuana is illegal, but it's not wrong. Nor is file-sharing.

wtf kind of reasoning is this. the drug laws WERE PUT IN because ppl thot it was immoral to do them. hell remember prohibition. it failed, but it was there because it was considered immoral to drink.

now I know YOU DON'T consider it immoral to do a lot of things. but to extrapolate that into a non-relationship between the law and morality. and even more absurdly a non-relationship between drug law and morality.

[Sava]

once again yavoon graces us with his wisdom... slavery was once legal... that was moral, right?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Sava
once again yavoon graces us with his wisdom... slavery was once legal... that was moral, right?

what what what?!? this must be the new diversionary tactic acompanied by smilies that obvious reinforce how correct u r.

just because ITS NOT UR MORALITY. does not mean the law was not based on moral sentiment(referring to drug laws). I mean how thick can u be?

[monkspider]

I would argue that NOT sharing MP3 files, when you easily have the means to do so, is immoral.

[Sava]

yavoon: I think I understand your point (which is amazing because you are so incoherent). But it's totally irrelevant from the fact that one is not morally compelled to follow an immoral law.

[DaShi]

Then go ahead.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Sava
yavoon: I think I understand your point (which is amazing because you are so incoherent). But it's totally irrelevant from the fact that one is not morally compelled to follow an immoral law.

useless post.

you are only "morally compelled" to follow what u feel ur "morally compelled" to follow. its like say "I dont have to want to do something I don't want to do."

ne other great grains of wisdom for us oh mighty sava?

[Sava]

you are only "morally compelled" to follow what u feel ur "morally compelled" to follow. its like say "I dont have to want to do something I don't want to do."

so basically you agree with me but you felt the need to post completely irrelevant and insulting banter... gotcha

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Sava
so basically you agree with me but you felt the need to post completely irrelevant and insulting banter... gotcha

no. I in no way agree w/ u. unless u r stating that ur post is A)wrong and B)useless.

lets go over.

law does not equal morality(especially in reference to drug law). wrong

ppl only feel morally compelled to do things that are in their morality. useless.

so unless those are also ur positions. then I must say that no I don't agree w/ u.