Is Copyright Infringement Morally Equivalent to Stealing?

[FluxCapacitator]

Filesharing is wrong, plain and simple. You are taking a product of some sort without giving any compensation, which by my definition at least is stealing.

It's not like artists don't make it easy enough for you as it is. Most band websites stream a few songs for free, and even some videos. There are internet radio sites that are free if you just watch some ads inbetween. You can use a legal service like iTunes for an easy way to get songs. And, dare I say it, you could buy the actual CD. Listening to music a luxury, not a right, and you should treat it as such by paying for and supporting the various artists.

Software, also, is often 'shared' illegally over the internet. I'm not sure how many people have programming experience, but it is really freaking hard to make a high quality program. And if these people don't get any compensation, it just gets worse. Even super expensive programs work to help you. I downloaded a free legal trial version of Maya, what normally costs thousands of dollars, and the people at Alias were willing to treat me like a normal customer. They even offered a student discount.

Honestly, reward people's hard work and pay for programs. If you like something enough to steal it, then you should be willing to pay for it.

 

[Human Being]

Freedom and greed, the two great wastes that waste great together...
No - I'm not bashing freedom itself, but the people who openly abuse it.
People who unabashedly file-share are often easily fit into a stereotype.

File-sharing's immoral because of the PRINCIPLE behind the act of theft.
Seems that many people in "civil" societies do not understand principles.
It's obvious that the PRINCIPLE of theft is counterproductive to society.

Forget about the specifics of situations. Stop explaining how it's "okay".
Principles transcend details - theft is theft is theft is theft is theft is...
Games people play with semantics are so transparent and weak-minded.

I laugh with glee every time I hear/see a news story about file "sharers"
getting busted. America makes Rome of old look like a preschool recess.
Capitalism + freedom + greed = wage-slave citizenry easily controlled...

PRINCIPLES... what say ye, file thieves? Do you understand "principle"??
It isn't the specific theft you commit that is "terrible", but the motives!
There are very few justifications for theft and GREED certainly isn't one.

Oh, and to Smurf - your posts in this thread are weak and uninspiring...

 

[Smurf]

The principle of theft can only exist with the principle of ownership. Which, it seems to me, is a direct confrontation to 'liberty'.

 

[loseyourname]

The principle of theft can only exist with the principle of ownership. Which, it seems to me, is a direct confrontation to 'liberty'.

So in a perfectly libertarian society, anyone should be able to walk into your kitchen and eat your food, or into your closet and wear your clothes, any time they want?

 

[tiger_striped_cat]

a few things...

It is not "stealing"
It is hard to use the word "stealing" in these contexts; indeed, most do not. They call it copyright infringement. Because if we liken this to any tangible good, like a car, then every living person on Earth can steal this "car" and the original owner can still have the original car. It is not a tangible good, so we should clearly modify our morality to reflect this.

And about stealing an idea
The first response to this is that you are taking away their right to make a profit—you’re stealing their idea. I immediately grant you this, it does not hurt my argument, and indeed, it strengthens it. Because if we are going to take one’s right to make a profit under consideration, then we should ask the question: What right does someone who makes millions upon millions of dollars have to deprive me of listening to their music? (I’ll have to get to the independent artist another time.) This is almost tantamount to someone having an infinitely reproduceable loaf of bread that could feed the world, but didn't want anyone to have it, what's the morality of that? I don't find anything immoral in regulating people's extreme selfishness, or rationality. Furthermore, only parochial thinking ignores how relative this entire notion of “right to profit is”. The entire notion of making a profit was born out of a Capitalist system.

Your morality seems relative
What if we lived in a socialist society? Or forget Socialism, how was music funded before either system? They were funded via patrons of the arts. What if the author wants you do "steal" their music? It’s definitely still against the law. What if a means existed whereby we give artists a very comfortable life—but with a few million less dollars--at the expense of free music for all? Would it be wrong to fight for such a system? What would this say about the old system and our “morality” if we adopted the new? The moral permissibility of stealing music is relative to one’s economic system. Even Deontology—or maybe I should say, especially Deontology—wouldn’t allow an ethic that is so susceptible to adjustment, that is so relative.

I take it none of you are Concequentalists
Take the two possible words: one where I steal and one where I do not. I would argue that in the latter world, I would not buy the CD. My stealing does not affect the artist in anyway, because even if I didn’t steal, I wouldn’t give them money. I am not withholding revenue from them. Now I know in the provincial Deontologist morality one would still call this stealing, but I think this is more of a testament to how many people erroneously equate legality with morality. Indeed, from a Utilitarian viewpoint, this creates a phenomenal amount of utility to billions and billions of people at the expense of a small amount of disutility to the millionaires. After all, the utility comes not only from the number of people that can benefit but from the fact that music is a very special thing indeed.

We are talking about something very special here
I think we can all agree that music is special. Something is different that makes music timeless in a way a new Xbox game isn't. It would be horrible that the poor of this nation (or others) would not be allowed to listen to something so beautiful, something that changes lives, simply because it was against the law. Now, whether you’re a Paris Hilton or someone growing up in the ghetto, anyone who has a internet connection can listen to some of humanity’s greatest creations—or in the very least, lift their life up a trifle, no matter how unluckily their circumstance. This gets us one step closer to a better, Rawlsian-esque world.Why do I steal music?
Because I do not think an infinitely reproducible, life-changing part of life, should be withheld from people (esp. the poor), because selfish millionaire musicians didn’t like the capitalist idea of copyright infringement.

 

[Hurkyl]

tiger_striped_cat: so basically, you're saying it's not immoral because you are getting something you like, and only harming someone that you think can afford to be harmed.

Do you really not see anything wrong with that?


By the way, your utilitarian analysis is faulty: you do not consider the consequences if everyone acts in this manner. It is easy to see that this leads to a bad outcome (artists cannot make any money off of their creations, there's no incentive for things to be published, et cetera), and thus a utilitarian would say that you should not steal music.

 

[tiger_striped_cat]

Don't load the question. I'm not harming them at all. Do you really think I'm harming them by not giving them $10/$1000000 (a VERY conservative estmate) of their income? But EVEN IF you do, remember, I told you I wouldn't buy the cd either way. So either way the true number is I'm withholding $0 from them.

 

[Hurkyl]

I'm not harming them at all. Do you really think I'm harming them by not giving them $10/$1000000 (a VERY conservative estmate) of their income? But EVEN IF you do, remember, I told you I wouldn't buy the cd either way. So either way the true number is I'm withholding $0 from them.

And I'm saying you're wrong.

Obviously you would not have bought everything you have stolen, but you would have bought some of what you've stolen...

By stealing music, you have set up a situation where you have achieved your desires at no cost, and continue to achieve further desires at no cost.

If you were not able to acquire desirable music for free, you would have achieved none of your desires, and you would have extra internal pressure to spend some of your resources on purchace music, and you would have bought some.

The law of diminishing returns rules the situation. When you have little or no music, getting 1 unit of music is of high utility to you. When you have lots of music, getting 1 unit of music is of low utility to you. By acquiring loads of free music, you have artificially diminished the utility of 1 unit of music, and thus shifted your allocation of resources away from the purchasing of music to other things.

-------------------------------------------------------------

And I will repeat again the flaw in your utilitarian reasoning: if everyone reasoned as you did, nobody would buy the music, which leads to a very negative outcome. Thus, stealing is immoral by utilitarian standards.

-------------------------------------------------------------

To reanalyze on a more global scale, you have three kinds of people:

(1) People who sell the music.
(2) People who pay for the music.
(3) People who steal the music.

You HAVE to have group 2 for this situation to work. It's not just the people selling the music who are subsidizing your habit: it's the other law-abiding people who are legally purchasing the music as well.

In my lifetime, I've seen the effect of group 3's actions lead to consequences that directly harm group 2, so I'm not just talking theory here.

-------------------------------------------------------------

All that aside, there's something else to consider. There are already lots of ways to get free music that do not harm anybody (because they're freely giving it away). Thus, any arguments you make that a person should have free music available to them does not justify the act of stealing the music that isn't freely available.

because selfish millionaire musicians...

Pot to kettle: you're black!

 

[Moonbear]

Don't load the question. I'm not harming them at all. Do you really think I'm harming them by not giving them $10/$1000000 (a VERY conservative estmate) of their income? But EVEN IF you do, remember, I told you I wouldn't buy the cd either way. So either way the true number is I'm withholding $0 from them.

What about the cost to the paying customer? When you steal music, do you really think it's the producer who is going to just absorb the cost and lose profits? That's not how business works. Instead, they will just charge more for the product trying to recoup their profits from the paying customers. So, you're not really hurting the producer, but the honest person who is paying for their music, and now also paying for yours in higher prices.

You also fail to factor in the number of people who are stealing music. It's not just $10 for YOUR copy, but $10 for each and every person stealing it.

You say you wouldn't have otherwise bought it, but then say that you don't think people should be deprived of music, so given the choice between paying or not having it, it seems you'd have paid for at least some of it.

And why shouldn't producers make a profit from it? If, as you claim, music is something "very special," then are they not providing a service to you in giving you a way to listen to that music in your home, any time, any place you want, without having to attend a live concert to hear it performed by the artist? Do you not think service providers should be paid for rendering services? Should your waitress not be paid for bringing food to you? Should the chef not be paid for preparing food for you? Should the farmer not be paid for growing the food for you? Food is something very special and even necessary too. The same is true for any service provided, even when that service doesn't put a physical product in your hands. For example, should all massage therapists give their services for free because no tangible product is received?

 

[Smurf]

So in a perfectly libertarian society, anyone should be able to walk into your kitchen and eat your food, or into your closet and wear your clothes, any time they want?

well if they made a copy of it first and gave that copy back I'm sure it'd be an identicle situation. I don't mind using minimal energy to multiply the food in my kitchen to feed a perfect stranger.

If only!

 

[tiger_striped_cat]

Obviously you would not have bought everything you have stolen, but you would have bought some of what you've stolen...
By stealing music, you have set up a situation where you have achieved your desires at no cost, and continue to achieve further desires at no cost.
...
The law of diminishing returns rules the situation.

This is an economic law, not a philosophical law. There are other means to get music. There are other ways to listen to music. In addition, if I think that CDs are just too expensive then I wouldn't buy any music. Maybe I would protest against the system, if I didn't have an alternative means. There are situations under which I would have bought no music. But I grant this, because I think there are stronger independent arguments. Yes, let’s say that I would have bought some music.

-------------------------------------------------------------
And I will repeat again the flaw in your utilitarian reasoning: if everyone reasoned as you did, nobody would buy the music, which leads to a very negative outcome. Thus, stealing is immoral by utilitarian standards.
-------------------------------------------------------------

I will respond with the same answer, when I make the claim that "your vote doesn't matter": I agree completely. It's true that if everyone didn't vote then this would have unfortunate outcomes. But we don't live in a world where my actions effect millions of people. If you take two worlds, one in which I die before I vote for my candidate and one after, are either of these world significantly different? No.
The same can be said for my music stealing situation. Yes, if millions did, then it would effect the music industry (actually, it may not, we'll see about that), but what if it was just me? Would you still think that I alone have that much of an impact on the industry. And please don't reply with an "if everyone did" response, because we just get in a loop. The utilitarian calculus applies only to real world situations, not fictitious ones.

To reanalyze on a more global scale, you have three kinds of people:
(1) People who sell the music.
(2) People who pay for the music.
(3) People who steal the music.
You HAVE to have group 2 for this situation to work. It's not just the people selling the music who are subsidizing your habit: it's the other law-abiding people who are legally purchasing the music as well.
In my lifetime, I've seen the effect of group 3's actions lead to consequences that directly harm group 2, so I'm not just talking theory here.

Actually, one of two things will happen:
1) I think we can agree that an amazing amount of music is stolen every day. Also we know artists make quite a bit of money. The moral impetus is this: Depending on how rich you are, you *should* fund the arts. However, this is the way it is now. The people who can afford $10 a CD or a $1 a song will buy them (I prefer to support artists by a more direct means.), people who cannot will find other means to improve their lives. But as for the people who think it's wrong. Yes, they are in the worst situation because of their beliefs. I really wish they would steal because it may bring about a better world:
2) Can you imagine it? If everyone stole and RIAA could not stop it, then the only people that would produce music are the ones who love it. After all, there are no exorbitant profits to be had—now that’s the kind of artist I want in the industry. The society as a whole would establish a "public trust" for music in some form or another to resolve this problem. Just as we've done for parks, mountains, and fire stations. We agreed as a society that these things shouldn't be in the market. Could the same be done for music? Wouldn't it be great if any book you've ever wanted to read was out there? And wouldn't it be terrible if we couldn't have this world because we were stuck in a given economic system (or subsystem)? Patrons of the arts have done it before, and we have systems in place to support artists so that anyone can go to an art gallery free, and not everyone likes art.
But we don't have to have such a radical a change. There are certain things that shouldn't be in the market (mountains), there are things that must be (cars), and there are things that maybe should straddle the line between both systems (legal drugs, music?). Should drug companies be allowed to make limitless profits at the expense of the elderly? Should musicians be allowed to make limitless profits at the expense of society (now I'm talking about those who already have millions of dollars). We can pay 99c for a song on Itunes these days. Now if artists made 1/10 of what they made these days, and if we get rid of the middleman (RIAA), we could pay ~0.01 cents a song. Alternatively, if you don't like that the artists are making 1000000 v.s. 10000000 then with a system that scales with income, you may still pay the same amount and artists will still get paid the same amount. Remember 5% of the people own 95% of the world.
Either way, based on the way the debate is going, it's obvious that the morality of music stealing is dependent on the current setup, on circumstance. This is not a candidate for a deontological moral law, it never is. It is tantamount to not jaywalking at 2 in the morning because it's against the law. Of course it's against the law, but it's not wrong. Just change the law (economic system, setup) and suddenly it's legal. But it was never wrong.

because selfish millionaire musicians...

Pot to kettle: you're black!

I just did the calculation: my $10 matters, a very conservative, 50 times more to me than to the artist. Who's really being selfish here? Kettle to pot: you're not!

 

[loseyourname]

well if they made a copy of it first and gave that copy back I'm sure it'd be an identicle situation. I don't mind using minimal energy to multiply the food in my kitchen to feed a perfect stranger.
If only!

You didn't limit it to ownership of information. You just said that ownership in general runs contradictory to liberty. I don't really see how you can actually think that is the case. If I built a house for myself, why should I not be able to claim it as mine? Would it really be more libertarian if anyone was allowed to come in and live in my house?

 

[Hurkyl]

And please don't reply with an "if everyone did" response, because we just get in a loop. The utilitarian calculus applies only to real world situations, not fictitious ones.

I'm sorry, but that's how utilitarianism works.

When considering a moral principle, the criterion is that it's a good principle if and only if it would lead to a good outcome if society at large adopted the principle.

The argument you are presenting is the prototypical argument of someone trying to rationalize away their immorality.

This is one of the standard things ruled out by utilitarianism: actions that appear to have a net benefit to society, but would lead to disasterous consequences if it was adopted as a general principle. (e.g. the surgeon who considers killing a healthy human being to harvest his organs, saving many other lives). Yours is even easier to rule out due to its selfishness: you aren't even benefiting society at large, you're only benefiting yourself.


Could things in general be better? Yep -- as you suggested, if we could achieve the same quality of music, but distributed freely and publicly subsidized, that would be great.

But that's a red herring: we're not talking about building a utopia, we're talking about the morality of stealing music today.

 

[Janus]

Okay, here's a situation to mull over:

Let's say that over time (pre-CDs) you had bought a number of LPs and tapes. You now decide that you would like these same albums on CD. You have a CD burner, but no way to transfer from the present medium they are on to the computer.

Is it immoral to download these albums from a file-sharer in order to burn them onto CD, considering that you have already paid full price for this music once?

What if you no longer have any of these previously purchased albums in your possession?

 

[tiger_striped_cat]

I'm sorry, but that's how utilitarianism works.

Actually it is. If I was anywhere near my book I would quote it directly. But I'm sure that these will do:
Regarding my "voting" example:
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:C4GAjePme9wJ:instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/util.htm+utilitarianism+%22your+vote+most+probably+won%27t+make+any+difference%22&hl=en&client=firefox-a
Regarding act v.s. rule Utilitarianism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
Regarding the fact that rule Utilitarianism has fallen out of favor:
http://www.utilitarianism.com/ruleutil.htm
In the very least, I can merely say that I'm a act-Utilitarian (who reason as I have); but, indeed most utilitarians are.

Could things in general be better? Yep -- as you suggested, if we could achieve the same quality of music, but distributed freely and publicly subsidized, that would be great.
But that's a red herring: we're not talking about building a utopia, we're talking about the morality of stealing music today.

And what if did talk about building a utopia? But you admit that it's dependent on one's economic system. This smacks of moral relativism of the worst kind. To kill is wrong, regardles of circumstance..

 

[Hurkyl]

In the very least, I can merely say that I'm a act-Utilitarian
...
To kill is wrong, regardles of circumstance..

This seems contradictory: for example, an act-Utilitarian should support, when all other factors are equal, the act of killing one person to save two other lives.

Rule utilitarianism is what was taught in the ethics class I had to take for my CS degree (it was geared for engineers, though), but I have other independent reasons for favoring rule utilitarianism over act utilitarianism. Prisoner paradox-type analysis, for example. Then, there's the circumstantial fact that the only times I ever see anyone using act utilitarianism to justify anything is when they're trying to rationalize an act that appears to be wrong (and is often obviously wrong).

For the record, my beliefs are at the opposite end of the scale: I believe that the ends generally cannot be used to justify the means. So, my analysis of the situation is easy: the manner in which you obtained the music is wrong, and that fact is not changed no matter how much you rationalize it.

For yet another angle, the one from which I generally argue in these discussions (even if I don't believe in it), morality is all about the prisoner-paradox: society as a whole is best off when everyone cooperates, and the concept of morality is to penalize those who would make the non-cooperative. This, of course, leads naturally into the rule utilitarian analysis.

And what if did talk about building a utopia? But you admit that it's dependent on one's economic system. This smacks of moral relativism of the worst kind. To kill is wrong, regardles of circumstance..

You cannot talk about morality at all unless you know enough of the circumstances around any situation.

E.G. is taking an apple immoral?

You can't answer. You don't know if someone has offered to give you one of their apples, or if we're talking about taking the first meal a homeless man has gotten in a week.

The economic system is only relevant insofar as it created the situation.

The music was sold to someone with the understanding that it would not be copied, and now you are conspiring with that someone to obtain a copy of that music. Thus, it is wrong.

The only relevance the current system has to the situation is that it makes these situations more frequent... this analysis would apply to any situation where you were obtaining a copy of the music from a source who had obtained it under the pretense that they would not copy it.

 

[Human Being]

Aside from one terse response, no other has taken the opportunity to address my previous post.
I don't know what that means... but I'll pretend it's because my points are irrefutable. Ha ha ha.

Seriously, look past my "tone" and give me some feedback. Remember, it's about the principles?

 

[Smurf]

You didn't limit it to ownership of information. You just said that ownership in general runs contradictory to liberty. I don't really see how you can actually think that is the case. If I built a house for myself, why should I not be able to claim it as mine? Would it really be more libertarian if anyone was allowed to come in and live in my house?

did you build the land it is built on and the wood you built it with?

it's an ethical argument

 

[Smurf]

Aside from one terse response, no other has taken the opportunity to address my previous post.
I don't know what that means... but I'll pretend it's because my points are irrefutable. Ha ha ha.

Seriously, look past my "tone" and give me some feedback. Remember, it's about the principles?

Well I would but... my posts are just so weak and uninspiring. I wouldn't stand a chance against you're omnipotent logic.

 

[tiger_striped_cat]

This seems contradictory: for example, an act-Utilitarian should support, when all other factors are equal, the act of killing one person to save two other lives.

Absolutely not. Most Utilitarians ARE act-Utilitarians. Convincing arguments have been made (as I've shown) that show that rule-Utilitarian is, for all intents and purposes, act-Utilitarianisms. The simple response to the above is that you did the calculation wrong. The Utilitarian calculus takes into consideration the difference between killing and letting die, so killing one to save two definitely is immoral because it creates more disutility.

Then, there's the circumstantial fact that the only times I ever see anyone using act utilitarianism to justify anything is when they're trying to rationalize an act that appears to be wrong (and is often obviously wrong).

Well first off all rule-Utilitarianism is basically act_Utiliarianism. Furthermore, your statement is neither here nor there. Because the case may be that they have rationalized correctly, and your provincial morality won't allow you to see it. I'm sure many people also thought that letting Rosa Parks sit on the front of the bus was "obviously wrong." But again, this is neither here nor there, because you didn't give a single example.

For the record, my beliefs are at the opposite end of the scale: I believe that the ends generally cannot be used to justify the means. So, my analysis of the situation is easy: the manner in which you obtained the music is wrong, and that fact is not changed no matter how much you rationalize it.

This is just a tautology that gives no examples or argumentation.

For yet another angle, the one from which I generally argue in these discussions (even if I don't believe in it), morality is all about the prisoner-paradox: society as a whole is best off when everyone cooperates, and the concept of morality is to penalize those who would make the non-cooperative. This, of course, leads naturally into the rule utilitarian analysis.

Exactly--well almost. I don't think anyone would call it a "prisoner-paradox". At least I've never seen it in any ethics texts. I think you're referring to the same thing I am. If you look at my original post I mentioned a "Rawlsian world." This is what you're talking about. Sort of like the quote, "The best way to divide disputed land is to get one side to divide the land, and let the other get the first choice. But Rawls takes it one step further. His philosophy is very much in the vein of this quote ("veil of ignorance", and the prisoner dilemma that you discuss). He says that the laws of society should benefit those who are most disadvantaged. Clearly, in this case, the millionaires seem to be most advantaged. As usually is the case, it is the rich that are not cooperating here.

The economic system is only relevant insofar as it created the situation.
The music was sold to someone with the understanding that it would not be copied, and now you are conspiring with that someone to obtain a copy of that music. Thus, it is wrong.

This is entirely non sequitur. What if the copy was for a backup? What if it was to give to a friend? You've done nothing but POSSIBLY proven that it is illegal, but not that it's wrong.

Again, we're talking about morality, not legality. You've moved the debate from a moral one to a legal one. I could care less if it's against the law, because you know what else is against the law...
http://www.stupidlaws.com

 

[Moonbear]

TThe same can be said for my music stealing situation. Yes, if millions did, then it would effect the music industry (actually, it may not, we'll see about that), but what if it was just me?

Then you're just being selfish. If it's not okay for anyone else, why is it okay for you to do it?

Patrons of the arts have done it before, and we have systems in place to support artists so that anyone can go to an art gallery free, and not everyone likes art.

Okay, so people also spend $1 million or $10 million or $50 million for a single painting to display. I suppose we could find a nice selection of 30 songs, costing millions of dollars each, and set up a gallery with different rooms to play those songs continuously, and if you wanted to hear music, you could go there to appreciate it, just make your $10 donation per visit. Very few art galleries are free, and someone is still paying for the art in them, usually with private donations. Of course someone else is picking out what they like to display; you can't walk into any gallery and see everything you like, and you certainly don't get to take the art home with you to appreciate there. So, I suppose if you want to limit music to only being available in single copies produced by just a few artists and only played at music museums, your argument for public endowments rather than paying would work, but that has nothing to do with stealing music that is not publically funded. Oh, wait, we do have something similar for music...turn on the radio. You can listen to NPR, which is publically funded, or you can listen to one of the stations sponsored by corporations through advertising dollars. Imagine that, there is a way for you to listen to music free without stealing it. If that's all you want, you've got it, so no need to steal music for your personal use.

But we don't have to have such a radical a change. There are certain things that shouldn't be in the market (mountains), there are things that must be (cars), and there are things that maybe should straddle the line between both systems (legal drugs, music?). Should drug companies be allowed to make limitless profits at the expense of the elderly? Should musicians be allowed to make limitless profits at the expense of society (now I'm talking about those who already have millions of dollars). We can pay 99c for a song on Itunes these days. Now if artists made 1/10 of what they made these days, and if we get rid of the middleman (RIAA), we could pay ~0.01 cents a song. Alternatively, if you don't like that the artists are making 1000000 v.s. 10000000 then with a system that scales with income, you may still pay the same amount and artists will still get paid the same amount.

You're not accounting for the costs to the recording industry to produce the songs, advertise the songs, distribute the songs, all of which would be borne by the individual artists instead if you eliminated the recording industry. You also haven't addressed my question above regarding payment for providing a service. Should people not be paid for providing services? That is what the recording industry does, they provide the service of getting the music from the artist to you.

It is tantamount to not jaywalking at 2 in the morning because it's against the law.

No, it's not at all the same. That jaywalking law is there to protect you and motorists from injury, it's not there to protect ownership. It might be more similar to going to a hot-tub dealer and using their hot tubs without buying based on the rationale that your neighbor bought a hot tub from them, and lots of other people buy hot tubs from them, so it won't cost anything if you use their hot tubs for free with no intention to purchase one.

I just did the calculation: my $10 matters, a very conservative, 50 times more to me than to the artist. Who's really being selfish here? Kettle to pot: you're not!

Who cares if it costs you more than the artist? That doesn't make it right. That just means you should choose carefully how you spend your money, and if you can't afford it, you don't buy it. If you're trying to rationalize it by the amount it costs, then would that mean it would be immoral if an album cost only 20 cents instead of $10? Are you then sending 20 cents to each artist for every album you download free? It's either immoral to steal music or it isn't; there's no sliding scale of dollar values to morality.

 

[tiger_striped_cat]

Freedom and greed, the two great wastes that waste great together...
No - I'm not bashing freedom itself, but the people who openly abuse it.
People who unabashedly file-share are often easily fit into a stereotype.

File-sharing's immoral because of the PRINCIPLE behind the act of theft.
Seems that many people in "civil" societies do not understand principles.
It's obvious that the PRINCIPLE of theft is counterproductive to society.

Forget about the specifics of situations. Stop explaining how it's "okay".
Principles transcend details - theft is theft is theft is theft is theft is...
Games people play with semantics are so transparent and weak-minded.

I laugh with glee every time I hear/see a news story about file "sharers"
getting busted. America makes Rome of old look like a preschool recess.
Capitalism + freedom + greed = wage-slave citizenry easily controlled...

PRINCIPLES... what say ye, file thieves? Do you understand "principle"??
It isn't the specific theft you commit that is "terrible", but the motives!
There are very few justifications for theft and GREED certainly isn't one.

Oh, and to Smurf - your posts in this thread are weak and uninspiring...

Human_Being. I didn't reply because I don't consider this argument all that strong. There's no substance here. You didn't really define "principle", or give any concrete examples. This is more of your speech from the pulpit than an opening statement of a debate. You need to give an example. Here I'll give you one of the srongest examples (but hardest to prove), a deductive argument:

1) Someone who makes over a certain level of money, doesn't need anymore money.
2)If you don't need anymore money, you can now give away your product for free.
3) If you usually sell music, you can now give music away for free.
4) If you can give music away for free and if it benefits others, you should give it away for free.
5) If you should give it away for free, you should want people to trade your music (whether or not it's legal).
6) If artists want people to trade their music illegally, then it's moral to trade music.

3 and 5 basically are rewrites of 2 and 4. 2 is almost obvious. 5 is fairly obvous. What are contraversial are 1 and 6.

As for 1---
Now I think that it's wrong that 95% of the world is owned by 5% of the pepole. I think that a capitalist system should not be let to run rampant. Every once in a while you get industries that do run rampant. Drug Companies, credit card companies, wallmart, and the muisic industry are all examples of establishments who control the prices of their product. Drug companies can set the cost of their own product. Credit card companies can raise your rates for any reason whatsoever. Wall-mart is so powerful it can force distrubitors into a given cost. And the market doesn't set cd prices via supply and demand. You don't see Busta Rhymes lowering his costs to get more people interested in his music. It would be nice if we had some sort of competition, but RIAA makes sure cd prices are set at a given cost. But I'm geting ahead of myself. Because the wealth of these companies is amazing. It's inefficient, and benefits no one but <1% of the world.

6 is plausable. Someone on this thread already said that taking Micheal Moores movie was ok, becasue he said it was ok. For this person 6 easily follows.

 

[Hurkyl]

1) Someone who makes over a certain level of money, doesn't need anymore money.
2)If you don't need anymore money, you can now give away your product for free.
3) If you usually sell music, you can now give music away for free.
4) If you can give music away for free and if it benefits others, you should give it away for free.
5) If you should give it away for free, you should want people to trade your music (whether or not it's legal).
6) If artists want people to trade their music illegally, then it's moral to trade music.

3 and 5 basically are rewrites of 2 and 4. 2 is almost obvious. 5 is fairly obvous. What are contraversial are 1 and 6.

I see two obvious problems with this argument (and they have nothing to do with 1 and 6):

Even if an artist can and should give music away for free, it does not follow that the artist wants to, or does give the music away for free.

It does not apply to the most common situation under discussion where the artist has agreed to let another party make all decisions about who can copy the music.

 

[Human Being]

The principle of theft can only exist with the principle of ownership. Which, it seems to me, is a direct confrontation to 'liberty'.

Regarding the statements quoted...

(1) Please specify which definition of "liberty" you meant. Most of the ensuing debate over your statements has centered around "libertarianism", which of course encapsulates a much larger concept than mere "liberty".

For reference:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

(2) Please explain how your statements apply to the "file sharing is not immoral" position. *IF* the principle of ownership is a direct confrontation to "'liberty'", what does that imply?

(3) Your terseness has prevented me (and potentially others) from drawing any real value from said statements, and it has prevented your ensuing posts from adding any real value to your previous statements.

I would like to address your quoted statements more thoroughly, and I will if that opportunity presents itself.

 

[tiger_striped_cat]

Then you're just being selfish. If it's not okay for anyone else, why is it okay for you to do it?

You're confused here. I didn't say it's not ok for anyone else. I said, what if I was the only one. We were talking about the consequences.

Okay, so people also spend $1 million or $10 million or $50 million for a single painting to display. I suppose we could find a nice selection of 30 songs, costing millions of dollars each, and set up a gallery with different rooms to play those songs continuously, and if you wanted to hear music, you could go there to appreciate it, just make your $10 donation per visit.

This is just a straw man, because there are many better ways, and Ill show you…

Very few art galleries are free, and someone is still paying for the art in them, usually with private donations. Of course someone else is picking out what they like to display; you can't walk into any gallery and see everything you like, and you certainly don't get to take the art home with you to appreciate there. So, I suppose if you want to limit music to only being available in single copies produced by just a few artists and only played at music museums, your argument for public endowments rather than paying would work.

The reason that this is a false analogy is that art is tangible, the number of people that go to galleries compared to who listen to music is miniscule. Just do the math. Do you know how much money cd sales made last year? 17 Billion dollars. And did you know taht 5% of that went to the artists. If you cut RIAA out and cut the profits of artists buy ANY percentage we could have 5 times as many artists and twice the music.

You're not accounting for the costs to the recording industry to produce the songs, advertise the songs, distribute the songs, all of which would be borne by the individual artists instead if you eliminated the recording industry.

Oh yes I am.
Production of recording per album (without videos)=$50,000
(this assumes a recording studio, if were talking about a recording booth: $10
Distribution over Internet=free
Advertise=I don't ever see commercials for Linkin Park. I never read in newspapers or magiznes ads for Coldplay. They are advertised via word of mouth, radio (which is free) and MTV. Word of mouth advertising=free
The beauty of music: priceless

(sorry I had to)

At this cost 340,000 albums can be produced a year. But I'm sure you'll think of some other costs. So let's do something crazy and say that I underestimated the costs by 100X, that means 3400 albums per year. Isn't it amazing when you cut out the middleman?

You also haven't add
ressed my question above regarding payment for providing a service. Should people not be paid for providing services? That is what the recording industry does, they provide the service of getting the music from the artist to you.

And they are no longer necessary. Never before has an industry litigated itself to subsistence. Like a telegraph company suing people using telephones (well not that bad). Before, CDs had to be made. Now they don't. Its an interesting time, and RIAA is unnecessary.

No, it's not at all the same. That jaywalking law is there to protect you and motorists from injury, it's not there to protect ownership. It might be more similar to going to a hot-tub dealer and using their hot tubs without buying based on the rationale that your neighbor bought a hot tub from them, and lots of other people buy hot tubs from them, so it won't cost anything if you use their hot tubs for free with no intention to purchase one.

HA HA. The context of that example was regarding illegality and morality, not ownership, but ok. But the great thing about these hot-tubs. They're infinitely reproducible, cost nothing to transport, and can be given to every person in the world. I think it's sort of selfish for the rich hot-tub dealer to say, "No, you can't have one of my infinite hot-tubs."

Who cares if it costs you more than the artist? That doesn't make it right. That just means you should choose carefully how you spend your money, and if you can't afford it, you don't buy it. If you're trying to rationalize it by the amount it costs, then would that mean it would be immoral if an album cost only 20 cents instead of $10? Are you then sending 20 cents to each artist for every album you download free? It's either immoral to steal music or it isn't; there's no sliding scale of dollar values to morality.

Why not? Say some guy has all the money in the world, he made it fair and square. Let's say he sold cd's. To make the analogy more exact, let's say he has an infinite number of cd's. Let's also say there's this poor couple. They are ok, but it wouldn’t it be nice if they had some music to listen to. Now the guy,could give one of his cd's to this couple but doesn't. What if they *gasp* copied one of the infinite cds from this man? Would it be wrong? Well maybe about as wrong as it would be to tell a white lie to save your friends feelings. But you’re missing the question that everyone does: what should be said about the morality of the person who withholds something that can benefit someone and has no reason to do so. That seems much worse to me. But this example doesn't seem the best, there's someone who did a much better job of explaining it than me:

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972----.htm

This is written in the context of saving lives but the idea is the same. If we have the power to help someone at no cost to ourselves, we should do it. What some artists (remember, some want you to download their music) are doing is wrong. And, no, I have absolutely no moral qualms of taking an beautiful infinitely reproducible good from a millionaire.

 

[tiger_striped_cat]

I see two obvious problems with this argument (and they have nothing to do with 1 and 6):
Even if an artist can and should give music away for free, it does not follow that the artist wants to, or does give the music away for free.
It does not apply to the most common situation under discussion where the artist has agreed to let another party make all decisions about who can copy the music.

They should want to. It's very wrong for them to withhold music from people when it will cost them nothing, and they still have all their millions of dollars. See the link to the essay above.

 

[Hurkyl]

They should want to. It's very wrong for them to withhold music from people when it will cost them nothing, and they still have all their millions of dollars. See the link to the essay above.

Forgive me for being cliché, but two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[tiger_striped_cat]

Forgive me for being cliché, but two wrongs do not make a right.

Sorta like stealing bread to feed your family from someone that wants you to starve. But you are forgiven, ethics is never that easy.

 

[Smurf]

Rule Utilitarianism and Act Utilitarianism are very different.
Here's an illustration:
A surgeon has six patients: one needs a liver, one needs a pancreas, one needs a gall bladder, and two need kidneys. The sixth just came into have his appendix removed. Should the surgeon kill the sixth man and pass his organs around to the others? Or, indeed, what would stop him from simply hunting down and slaughtering the first healthy man (the seventh) he comes across on the street, patient or non-patient? This would obviously violate the rights of the sixth/seventh man, but act utilitarianism seems to imply that, given a purely binary choice between (1) killing the man and distributing his organs or (2) not doing so and the other five dying, violating his rights is exactly what we ought to do. This choice would be reasoned as a choice of outcomes, (1) having one dead, and choice (2) having five dead, the implementation being ignored and the outcomes strictly focused upon.

A rule utilitarian, however, would look at the rule, rather than the act, that would be instituted by cutting up the sixth man. The rule in this case would be: "whenever a surgeon could kill one relatively healthy person in order to transplant his organs to more than one other person who needs them, he ought to do so." This rule, if instituted in society, would obviously lead to bad consequences. Relatively healthy people would stop going to the hospital, we'd end up performing many risky transplant operations, etc., etc. So a rule utilitarian would say we should implement the opposite rule: don't harvest healthy people's organs to give them to sick people. If the surgeon killed the sixth (seventh) man, then he would be doing the wrong thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#Act_utilitarianism_vs._rule_utilitarianism

 

[Hurkyl]

Sorta like stealing bread to feed your family from someone that wants you to starve. But you are forgiven, ethics is never that easy.

?

I don't see how this is a response to what I said, but maybe the meaning of that cliché wasn't clear.

The meaning of the phrase "Two wrongs don't make a right" is that you cannot justify a wrong act by saying it's in response to some other wrong act.

You seem to have given up trying to argue that stealing music is not a wrong act, and now seem to be trying to argue that the fact that (certain) music is not freely available is a very wrong thing. You are making this point as if it counts as a proof that stealing music is not a wrong act. (i.e. a "right")

But the fact of the matter is that this is a red herring. If stealing music is a right, that won't be proven by arguing that it should have been made freely available. If stealing music is a wrong, then arguing that it should have been made freely available doesn't change that fact. (i.e. two wrongs don't make a right)

Here's an exercise for you: explain why your example is not a counterexample to "Two wrongs don't make a right".