Ethics and Piracy

[Agathon]

DaShi - St Leo is yanking your chain. Downloading music is legal in Canada.

See... there's two good things about Canada. 1) Downloading; 2) The national animal is a rude word for women's naughty bits.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I differentiate between material (the actual cd which I won't steal), and the information on it, which is abstract that I will copy. I believe an infinite resource like information or knowledge cannot be paid for, an exchange of resources for an infinite resource seems a perversion on the notion of capitalism.

so how should artists be supported, if people shouldn't pay for their work? Government? That doesn't seem like capitalism to me.

[Agathon]

People already pay to support them in levies on CDRs, Blank Cassettes and other recordable media. That's why downloading is legal in Canada.

I'm a Commie so I'm quite happy to share the material I write with others although I favour using a GPL style copyright. There are precious few original ideas in any work since culture is largely a communal enterprise. Why should I claim sole ownership over ideas? Why shouldn't other people be free to use them and alter them to suit their own needs? After all, that's what I do when I write a paper or translate some Greek. Why shouldn't I bestow the same freedom upon others?

[Whaleboy]

so how should artists be supported, if people shouldn't pay for their work? Government? That doesn't seem like capitalism to me.

People can if they want, for example, CD is a better format undoubtably than mp3, due to convenience, quality and the feeling of something in your hand. One can also provide mechandise with it, or information, booklets, movies etc etc you get the idea.

And yes, it will mean changes in business practices, but in such an ambiguous field as this, indeed in most of the digital arenas, there is money to be made. And frankly, the survival of music companies does not register in my mind compared to the value of free information.

And no, I don't think the government should pay. I believe in a free market, but with some consistent limitations, the freedom of info is among them.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
Laws are there to protect the interests of a group or section of society (often a large majority). In this case the law is being applied to protect the financial interest of the people who make money from selling a product.

Well, actually, this isn't a "law", it's breach of contract. Are you saying breach of contract is OK when one of the parties is rich?

The problem is that they are seeking to charge more for that product than the market will willingly pay, or in some cases can pay. So substantial numbers of people choose to break that particular law.

If I charge $5,000,000 for a beat-up car, does that make it OK for you to steal it? If you aren't willing to pay the price, don't buy it.

There are alternative methods of distributing this material, such as on-line stores, which do encourage people to purchase it legitimately. Much of the problem is in fact criminal piracy on a large scale yet individual consumers are being targeted as a softer touch.

So the law is being applied to protect the position of a minority which could be protected in other, more widely acceptable, ways at the expense of the majority. Such application of the law is unjust and usually fails from a historical perspective. I do not consider it unethical to break an unjust law. Therefore piracy for personal and home use is not unethical. If the material were available at a more affordable and reasonable cost (and the people who originated it actually got rather more of the profits) then it would be unethical.

So? Just because the companies aren't doing it the most effective way doesn't mean you can steal from them. It's their choice.

[Whaleboy]

I'm a Commie so I'm quite happy to share the material I write with others although I favour using a GPL style copyright. There are precious few original ideas in any work since culture is largely a communal enterprise. Why should I claim sole ownership over ideas? Why shouldn't other people be free to use them and alter them to suit their own needs? After all, that's what I do when I write a paper or translate some Greek. Why shouldn't I bestow the same freedom upon others?

I completely concur, though I think that if you do not release info into the public domain, i.e., it resides only on your hard drive or desk, not in the shops or on the internet, then it should not be free and is your property. The moment you publicise it, it is free. What do you think?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
And no, I don't think the government should pay. I believe in a free market, but with some consistent limitations, the freedom of info is among them.

You still have complete freedom of information! However, you agree to waive that freedom (with respect to the particular song or game) when you purchase the CD. If you don't agree, don't buy the CD!

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Agathon
I'm a Commie so I'm quite happy to share the material I write with others although I favour using a GPL style copyright.

Pardon my ignorance, what is GPL?

Originally posted by Agathon
There are precious few original ideas in any work since culture is largely a communal enterprise. Why should I claim sole ownership over ideas? Why shouldn't other people be free to use them and alter them to suit their own needs? After all, that's what I do when I write a paper or translate some Greek. Why shouldn't I bestow the same freedom upon others?

I agree with the lack of originality. Do you get paid solely to write papers and translations? Would quality in writing and music and everything else deteriorate if those artists had to find day jobs? I think it would. Some would be able to continue through concerts etc, but I think many people would be turned away due to lack of capital.

[Whaleboy]

So? Just because the companies aren't doing it the most effective way doesn't mean you can steal from them. It's their choice.

I would hope that I have shown how it is not stealing. Please demonstrate my error.

[Kuciwalker]

Technically, it isn't theft. It IS, however, breach of contract, which you CAN be sued for.

[Whaleboy]

Technically, it isn't theft. It IS, however, breach of contract, which you CAN be sued for.

Undoubtably, but Whaleboy cares not for the legal status quo...

Pardon my ignorance, what is GPL?

A free software licence that does such things as linux, openoffice.org etc. Easily modified for documentation or music etc etc.

[Agathon]

Why not take a more radical view, Skywalker?

Where is it written that people have a right to make a living selling music? People made music long before it was a business and will continue to do so for the joy of doing it. Just because I can do something doesn't mean I have the right to charge other people for it.

Where is it written that musicians must be fabulously wealthy? People will still make music and perform concerts for which they will be paid (and most do better out of this than from record sales). If a few people don't think it is worth the effort, that's up to them. No one is forcing them to be musicians.

Given the technology we now have why must the music available for consumption be mediated by A&R men and corporations? If I'm a musician and I want people to hear my music I can upload it to my website and let the public decide whether or not it is worth listening to. I certainly don't need to compromise my artistic integrity by submitting to soft drink sponsorship or makeovers or the perverse and pornographic advertising campaigns that accompany most record releases.

What's happening here is that a formerly profitable enterprise has been rendered obsolete by technology. It so happens that the delivery of culture is extremely profitable for both the deliverers and the advertisers that pay them. If they have a place in this brave new world, it will be at a much lower price, and they have to accept that. So what if MTV goes bust? It was co-opted long ago and has sucked for years.

I'm sick of having music chosen for me and marketed to me. I'd rather pick up recommendations from other end users and genuine fans, rather than corporate shills.

There's nothing that would give me greater pleasure than to see control of popular culture wrested from the grip of Warner, Sony, and Viacom and restored to the people who make it and enjoy it.

[Kuciwalker]

Where is it written that people have a right to make a living selling music? People made music long before it was a business and will continue to do so for the joy of doing it. Just because I can do something doesn't mean I have the right to charge other people for it.

Of course you have the right to charge someone. You can charge someone for anything you want, assuming the other party agrees. I don't HAVE to give you the music, but I will if you give me some money and don't share it with other people. It's called a "contract".

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Undoubtably, but Whaleboy cares not for the legal status quo...

Unless you dispute the right to contract in this instance, you have no argument against it. You signed a contract, you have to honor it.

[lord of the mark]

It may be that the law is more restrictive than morality is and that, morally, it should be.


Kant - act in such a way that you can generalize it to a universal law.


Proposition = If everyone DL's intellectual property, this will eliminate the market for intellectual property, and will result in the end of production of most of it. The DLer is a parasite on the "suckers" who pay for the stuff - if all adapted his moral rules, then there would be nothing to DL. The moral rule hence contradicts itself, and is not moral. QED.

Response from "moral" DLer - "I" dont DL everything I want. I DL some songs to get a feel for a group, etc. But I also buy large amounts of music, games, etc. At least as much (or at most negligibly less) than i would if DLing didnt exist. Ergo, I do NOT reduce the market for intellectual property, and my rule IS consistent with EVERYONE else doing the same thing. Hence it is moral. QED.

Social policy fact - many DLers do not buy intellectual property, and there is (empirical question) real impact on production of intellectual property. It is not possible for the legal system to accurately discern who would have purchase the same amount of int prop and who would not have, so the system must ban all legally. However the degree of public resources placed into enforcement should vary to the extent of real decline of intell property production. However unlimited private action must be allowed, since once we establish a property right, it is not possible to limit its private enforcement.


However given the above, those who DL and get away with it, and KNOW for sure that they would not buy any more records, games etc if they didnt DL, can DL with a free conscience.


Is this a Straussian arguement????

[Agathon]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


Pardon my ignorance, what is GPL?

The general public license. It's a specific form of copyright that mandates sharing. It is most famous for being applied to the Linux OS, but there is nothing stopping anyone from releasing any sort of material under a similar license.

The GPL mandates sharing. If you obtain a piece of GPLed material you are free to share it with others and if you change it you are mandated to share your changes with others so that they may benefit from your changes as you did from theirs.

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

[Kuciwalker]

It's all beside the point. You do not have the right to force other people to produce music for you (or distribute it, for that matter). However, some people are willing to do this, PROVIDED you agree to give them some money and not share the music with other people. If you don't agree, you don't get the music.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
And no, I don't think the government should pay. I believe in a free market, but with some consistent limitations, the freedom of info is among them.

so you consider music and games and movies to be "information" and thus they cannot be owned by an individual? Do you feel the same way about patents?

[Whaleboy]

Unless you dispute the right to contract in this instance, you have no argument against it. You signed a contract, you have to honor it.

But I signed nothing.. most of my music comes from downloading it which I signed nothing or agreed to nothing to get, and furthermore, I take a utilitarian attitude to contracts. They are irrelevant.

Kant - act in such a way that you can generalize it to a universal law.

God I feel so dirty by agreeing with that.

Ignore Kant people!!

God help me if I ever agree with the notion of moral or qualitative absolutes. I don't even believe in quantitative absolutes!

again to Agathon.

[Whaleboy]

so you consider music and games and movies to be "information" and thus they cannot be owned by an individual? Do you feel the same way about patents?

Yes.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

Where is it written that people have a right to make a living selling music? People made music long before it was a business and will continue to do so for the joy of doing it. Just because I can do something doesn't mean I have the right to charge other people for it.

Of course you have the right to charge someone. You can charge someone for anything you want, assuming the other party agrees. I don't HAVE to give you the music, but I will if you give me some money and don't share it with other people. It's called a "contract".

I could say that about the jokes I tell, but it is impossible for me to seek compensation from everyone who tells someone else my jokes.

Besides, it is simply not true that one can contract to do anything. Some contracts (like those involved in organ selling) are automatically void.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
But I signed nothing.. most of my music comes from downloading it which I signed nothing or agreed to nothing to get, and furthermore, I take a utilitarian attitude to contracts. They are irrelevant.

Ever heard of receiving stolen property?

[Whaleboy]

Ever heard of receiving stolen property?

Property is a term that can only refer to a finite resource, a material object. Not to information.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Property is a term that can only refer to a finite resource, a material object. Not to information.

Not in this world

[lord of the mark]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Whaleboy
ignore Kant people!!
God help me if I ever agree with the notion of moral or qualitative absolutes. I don't even believe in quantitative absolutes!

why? the point is that if you act according to a rule that makes sense for you ONLY if other people DONT act according that rule, then your action makes sense ONLY if you arbitrarily privilege yourself.

[Agathon]

And what gives a musician the right to charge me for a recording of his, if it is not completely original.

Say for example, it's a metal album. Should he have to pay Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath and Deep Purple for ripping off their style. Or should he have to pay Eddie Van Halen because he's one of the countless guitarists who have basically ripped off Eddie's style. And should Eddie have to pay Jimi Hendrix and Richie Blackmore, and should they have to pay the black bluesmen they adapted their style from? etc. etc.

[monkspider]

Silly things like intellectual property laws really have no bearing on this discussion. Such laws are only the product of the ego, of people who are too concerned with material things.

The only laws that I obey are that of God, which are really quite simple: love, love, love, and then love some more. Therefore, I will share MP3s with anyone who wants them, in hopes of making their day just a little bit better. I hope that others realize that this is the right thing to do as well.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Property is a term that can only refer to a finite resource, a material object. Not to information.

Not in this world

[Garth Vader]

Originally posted by skywalker

Of course you have the right to charge someone. You can charge someone for anything you want, assuming the other party agrees. I don't HAVE to give you the music, but I will if you give me some money and don't share it with other people. It's called a "contract".

So if you buy a CD and you play it for me is it wrong because you'd shared it with me and I enjoyed the music without paying for it?

[Kuciwalker]

If the contract was "you can't play it where anyone else can here", then yes.

The only laws that I obey are that of God which are really quite simple: love, love, love, and then love some more. Therefore, I will share MP3s with anyone who wants them, in hopes of making their day just a little bit better. I hope that others realize that this is the right thing to do as well.

Well, the only laws that I obey are those of Sauron, which are really quite simple: KILL KILL KILL. Think the judge cares?