Is Copyright Infringement Morally Equivalent to Stealing?

[tiger_striped_cat]

?
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.

I'm sorry, I was trying to show you the err of your ways. The entire problem with your statement, is that file-sharing isn't wrong in the same way that sealing bread isn't wrong. You made a false analogy.

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)

No my statement is both. It's not wrong to steal, because of the many arguments above (the consequentialist one comes to mine), AND that what they are doing is wrong. But I'm game, EVEN IF I don't ahve the arguments above, I think you see that the cliche is just that. If someone steals bread from someone who wants them to starve, it's the same thing. Two wrongs (stealing bread, wanting to starve), but that's not a right, correct? Your response will be explaining the differnce. Whatever explaniation you give will be the same response that I give to my situation.

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

Explained at start

 

[Human Being]

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.

Oh, I'd say there's some substance here:

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.

If you must know, the definition I intend when I use the word "principle" is:
A basic or essential quality or element determining intrinsic nature or characteristic behavior.

Regardless of how immorally the music industry behaves, anyone who would participate in behavior which deprives another of deserved profit *is* behaving immorally as well. The act of theft deprives another of deserved profit or deserved property. While there are situations in which it is understandable that a person would steal, it does not follow that in said situations the theft was moral. That's why I said "theft is theft is theft..." - the *principle* behind the act of theft is the central issue to whether or not file-sharing is immoral.

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.

I *agree* with what you've said in the above quote. Having said that, it does *not* follow that your points 1 through 6 support the "file-sharing is not immoral" position. You are basically "explaining how it's 'okay'" - and, in my opinion, ineffectually.

People, we aren't talking about someone stealing food or water in order to avoid potential death. We're talking about millions of people, already surviving quite nicely as evidenced by their owning or having access to an electronic device which plays digital music. We're talking about millions of people who *want* something non-essential, without paying for it. Greed, plain and simple. Theft, plain and simple.

It should be stated that the use of the generic term "file-sharing", in my post and likely in others', is really specific to the type of file-sharing which results in copyright violation. Such file-sharing isn't justifiable through any excuse. If an artist owns their product, they have the legal right to license their product in a way that decriminalizes the duplication of that product. They could even forego applying for a copyright. Rarely, some do this. Most often though, the product *is* copyrighted.

Lastly, a compliment is in order - Hurkyl, your contributions to this thread are objective and sensible. In my opinion, you clearly "get it".

 

[Hurkyl]

You made a false analogy.

I wasn't making an analogy. I was pointing out that the alledged wrongness of not making music freely available does not make stealing music a right act.

If I was using "Two wrongs don't make a right" to justify my claim that stealing music is a wrong, then you'd have me... not on a false analogy, but on assuming what I'm trying to prove.

Let me say it more bluntly:

Your argument is either a non sequitur or a red herring, depending on whether or not it was intended to justify your claim that file stealing is not wrong.

There, I hope that cannot possibly be misinterpreted.

I think you see that the cliche is just that.

Well, duh. That a cliché is a cliché should be trivially obvious.

Two wrongs (stealing bread, wanting to starve), but that's not a right, correct? Your response will be explaining the differnce.

Given the hypothesis that stealing bread is a wrong, then it follows that (stealing bread, wanting to starve) is also a wrong.

To what difference are you referring?

 

[tiger_striped_cat]

People, we aren't talking about someone stealing food or water in order to avoid potential death. We're talking about millions of people, already surviving quite nicely as evidenced by their owning or having access to an electronic device which plays digital music. We're talking about millions of people who *want* something non-essential, without paying for it. Greed, plain and simple. Theft, plain and simple.

Then change the analogy. Let's say someone owns infinite loaves of bread and some people are "doing quite nicely." They don't need the bread. But there lives are inhanced if they can have an extra piece of bread. Shouldn't the millionare give one of his infinite loves of bread to the couple. (You're right about that greed part.) And do you really think that it would be wrong for the couple to copy one of the infinite loaves to bring there lives up a triffle? The question were talking about here is: do you think it's morally wrong to be selfish? If it is, then maybe the rich(er) should give to the poor(er).

I HAVE to go to bed. Good talking to you all. See you tomorrow.

 

[Hurkyl]

The question were talking about here is: do you think it's morally wrong to be selfish?

No, it is not.

The question we're talking about here is, "Do you think it's morally wrong to steal (music)?"

The question of whether it's morally wrong to be selfish is nothing but a red herring.

 

[tiger_striped_cat]

Your argument is either a non sequitur or a red herring, depending on whether or not it was intended to justify your claim that file stealing is not wrong.
There, I hope that cannot possibly be misinterpreted.

I do understand. But you've failed to explain any of it. You said "two wrongs don't make a right." What are the two wrongs? I know one is withholding music. And the other? What is it? If it's stealing music being wrong, then why would I claim the exact opposite of what I was trying to prove this entire time.

Well, duh. That a cliché is a cliché should be trivially obvious.
Given the hypothesis that stealing bread is a wrong, then it follows that (stealing bread, wanting to starve) is also a wrong.
To what difference are you referring?

So you agree with me?
Given the permise that sealing music is wrong, then it follows that
(stealing music, wanting not to have music) is also wrong.
When did I ever make that my premise? Why would I ever do such a thing?

 

[tiger_striped_cat]

No, it is not.
The question we're talking about here is, "Do you think it's morally wrong to steal (music)?"
The question of whether it's morally wrong to be selfish is nothing but a red herring.

Doesn't matter. My arguments don't stand on this by anymeans. But one way to strengthen it is to ask the question(s):
"Do you think it's morally wrong to steal music?"
"Under what circumstances, because you can't steal a CD from the store."

Circumstances: infinitely reproduceable, owner is selfish, dependent on capitalist sytem, millions can benifit, music is special in it's own right.
Other Circumstances: owner wants you to have it, you contribute a smal amount of money, you would of never had bought the cd either way

All of them stand on their own, but adding this only strengthens the argument.

 

[Hurkyl]

When did I ever make that my premise?

You stated it as a premise here:

Two wrongs (stealing bread, wanting to starve), but that's not a right, correct? Your response will be explaining the differnce.

Doesn't matter. My arguments don't stand on this by anymeans.

In other words, it's a red herring.

All of them stand on their own, but adding this only strengthens the argument.

No, it doesn't. If your other arguments aren't sufficient to prove that stealing music is not a wrong, then when you add this one, it's still insufficient to prove that stealing music is not a wrong.

Similarly. if your other arguments aren't sufficient to refute the hypothesis that stealing music is wrong, then adding this argument is still insufficient to refute the hypothesis. (i.e. two wrongs don't make a right)

 

[Human Being]

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

I'm glad you didn't write any of that, because...

(1) why should we assume that an act utilitarian's ONLY two options in that scenario are to kill one person or kill five people?
(2) the appendix removal isn't explicitly declared an emergency appendectomy, so we cannot assume it is.
(3) if the surgeon arbitrarily kills one man, he not only has some explaining to do, he risks going to prison.
(4) the other five patients aren't declared to be at risk of immediate death, so we cannot assume they are.

Okay, I'm not going to continue explaining why the above "illustration" is virtually worthless on its own, let alone as an aid in determining whether or not file-sharing is immoral. Whomever composed the above hypothetical, failed in my opinion. What are YOU trying to say, Smurf? Are you trying to say that based on act utilitarianism, individual acts of copyright violation produce utility *therefore* copyright violation by millions produces utility?

I wish some participants in this thread would come up with a sound argument to support their position that file-sharing is not immoral. Thus far, the lot of posts attempting to, are surprisingly easy to refute.

 

[Human Being]

Then change the analogy. Let's say someone owns infinite loaves of bread and some people are "doing quite nicely." They don't need the bread. But there lives are inhanced if they can have an extra piece of bread. Shouldn't the millionare give one of his infinite loves of bread to the couple. (You're right about that greed part.) And do you really think that it would be wrong for the couple to copy one of the infinite loaves to bring there lives up a triffle? The question were talking about here is: do you think it's morally wrong to be selfish? If it is, then maybe the rich(er) should give to the poor(er).
I HAVE to go to bed. Good talking to you all. See you tomorrow.

Why rely on analogy, when analyzing the actual paradigm itself is simple enough? Most people make inaccurate analogies, as evidenced by this very thread. For example, someone owning "infinite" loaves of bread does NOT correspond to the situation of file-sharing. My goodness, just look at what you wrote, TSC! I'm almost shocked that someone would even propose such statements as an argument in favor of the "file-sharing is not immoral" position.

Some people here apparently don't realize that they *are* cliche. File-sharing is akin to "if you can't beat them, join them." Since the music industry is ripping me off, I'll rip them off. Millions of other people are ripping off the music industry, so what's one more?

I'd just like to reiterate how inadequate the arguments have been in support of the "file-sharing is not immoral" position.

 

[Smurf]

What are YOU trying to say, Smurf?

Someone on the previous page said that rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism were the same thing. That's simply untrue, I was providing a reference for it.

 

[Smurf]

I'd just like to reiterate how inadequate the arguments have been in support of the "file-sharing is not immoral" position.

What are the arguments in support of the "file-sharing is wrong" position?

 

[tiger_striped_cat]

You stated it as a premise here:

But I'm not trying to prove that sealing bread is wrong. And I was quoting you. Where did I say that stealing music was wrong?

No, it doesn't. If your other arguments aren't sufficient to prove that stealing music is not a wrong, then when you add this one, it's still insufficient to prove that stealing music is not a wrong.

That doesn't follow at all. What if the arguments are independent? The Utilitarian argument is independent of the selfishness of the artists argument. If one fails, the other can still succeed.

Similarly. if your other arguments aren't sufficient to refute the hypothesis that stealing music is wrong, then adding this argument is still insufficient to refute the hypothesis. (i.e. two wrongs don't make a right)

I think we're wasting time with this. We are arguing about arguing, fine fine. This doesn't matter, how about back to the topic. Ill start:

Copyrights expire. At the moment some people say its wrong to download music. There a few spurious reasons they say this. But it's interesting to look at the moment the copyright expires. Some say wrong to download because they don't want you to trade their music.

Assume the copyright is about to expire and assume the artist (or his estate) doesn't want you to have the song but is denied the copyright extension.
Look at one second before and after the copyright expires, it seems like it was wrong before and then it's right after. Or is it? If morality does change so suddenly, then this is obviously absurd, or at least isn't a candidate of a moral law. If it doesn't change like this then either it is morally permissible before, or it should be illegal after. I assume you wouldn't admit to it being moral before the expiration because this proves my point. So I take it you'll say that it should be made illegal. That is, we should allow unrestricted copyrights? Do you believe this, please explain?

 

[tiger_striped_cat]

Why rely on analogy, when analyzing the actual paradigm itself is simple enough? Most people make inaccurate analogies, as evidenced by this very thread. For example, someone owning "infinite" loaves of bread does NOT correspond to the situation of file-sharing. My goodness, just look at what you wrote, TSC! I'm almost shocked that someone would even propose such statements as an argument in favor of the "file-sharing is not immoral" position.
Some people here apparently don't realize that they *are* cliche. File-sharing is akin to "if you can't beat them, join them." Since the music industry is ripping me off, I'll rip them off. Millions of other people are ripping off the music industry, so what's one more?
I'd just like to reiterate how inadequate the arguments have been in support of the "file-sharing is not immoral" position.

Get off your soapbox and form an argument please. Philosophers use analogy all the time--it's an accepted practice. This is because ethics is very difficult. Sometimes wrong and right are not clear in complicated situations. And this case, no, it's not simple enough. Maybe you don't understand it, but that's not enough to dismiss it outright. The fact is there is nothing wrong with using an analogy and you haven't shown how my analogy is false. Humor me. Let's use the analogy and see where it takes us, because your personal beliefs are interfering with this ethical reasoning.

 

[tiger_striped_cat]

Someone on the previous page said that rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism were the same thing. That's simply untrue, I was providing a reference for it.

Actually they ARE the same thing:

"Another problem is that the best rules would not be simple. The best rule for promise-keeping would be of the form: 'Always keep your promises except...'(where the list of exceptions would be very long). This led the American philosopher David Lyons to argue, in Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism 1965, that a plausible formulation of rule-utilitarianism would make it recommend the same actions as act-utilitarianism, so the two kinds are 'extensionally equivalent' and there is no practical difference between the two. Currently, rule-utilitarian formulations seem to be ought of favour, but there are attempts to rehabilitate them."

http://www.utilitarianism.com/ruleutil.htm

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

I think is against law but not immoral.

Going against the law is immoral.

 

[ONJ's Noble Steed]

Going against the law is immoral.

Well, of course! I'm sure both you and I would agree that hiding a Jew in your basement during the Nazi regime would have been completely immoral, as I'm pretty sure it was against the law.

 

[Hurkyl]

Who said anything about completely immoral?

I would certainly agree that the illegality of hiding a Jew in your basement during the Nazi regime would contribute to the immorality of the act. (Even if, in the final analysis, we decided it was not immoral to do so)

 

[ONJ's Noble Steed]

Who said anything about completely immoral?
I would certainly agree that the illegality of hiding a Jew in your basement during the Nazi regime would contribute to the immorality of the act. (Even if, in the final analysis, we decided it was not immoral to do so)

So you admit in your last statement that it's not immoral, despite the fact that it violates the law.

 

[Hurkyl]

So you admit in your last statement that it's not immoral,

I've admitted (nor denied) any such thing.

But it doesn't matter -- I'm sure you realize that even if you can argue that there exists one illegal act that can be justified, that does not get you any closer to a justification of stealing files.

 

[dduardo]

Would the situation be different if instead of music people were filesharing food, water or crude oil? Just to be clear, I'm talking about physically duplicating food, water or crude oil with some type of "imaginary" machine.

Also, why do people expect to be paid for intellectual property? Do people have some divine right to be compenstated for ideas? If people decide to release the information to the public that information is public. If they don't want it to be public then don't make it public.

There needs to be a strong distinction between physical property and intellectual property. People get them confused very easily.

Stealing != Copyright Infringment

If nature has made anyone thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possesses as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

 

[Human Being]

Would the situation be different if instead of music people were filesharing food, water or crude oil? Just to be clear, I'm talking about physically duplicating food, water or crude oil with some type of "imaginary" machine.

Obviously the situation would be different. Can you make your point?

But then again, you aren't asking if the producers and/or distributors
of food, water, or crude oil would allow such "matter-sharing". Nope.

Also, why do people expect to be paid for intellectual property? Do people have some divine right to be compenstated for ideas? If people decide to release the information to the public that information is public. If they don't want it to be public then don't make it public.

You do understand what patents and copyrights are, don't you?

As stated, "release the information to the public" is very ambiguous.
There is such a thing as "public domain", but it's a rare exception to
the rule in any capitalist society. Again, can you make your point??

There needs to be a strong distinction between physical property and intellectual property. People get them confused very easily.

As evidenced by your very own post! Seriously though, I'm
thinking you do understand the distinction - but you're just
trying to "make a point"? I'm really frustrated by your post.

Intellectual property is just as "real" as the fake "individual"
which results from the creation of a corporation. In spite of
your desires, capitalism in the U.S. is based upon and even
requires the concept of intellectual property. Ever heard of
Ford? He did far more than 'only' produce physical property.

Stealing != Copyright Infringment

Spoken like someone who believes file-sharing is a civil right.

Here's a better equation for you to chew on:
"Copyright Infringement == Profit Stealing"

Again, I should say that I don't like the RIAA's methods of
maintaining legal control over so much of the industry. But
then again, does any other powerful American organization
behave any differently? Copyright exists for a good reason.
As much as it's abused by those with power, it provides an
adequate amount of power to those who have none.

Again, I should say that I don't like capitalism, or the U.S.
way of doing business. But I also don't like greedy people,
whether they are stealing billions from Enron investors, or
downloading copyrighted material that should be paid for.

It's been tried by many, but always seems to fail miserably.
Attempting to "classify" the illegal duplication of intellectual
property as somehow NOT stealing money, is foolish IMHO.
Oh, but money isn't being stolen, only a bunch of 0s & 1s??
And it isn't being stolen because the original never moved??

I just love capitalism, don't you?

 

[Hurkyl]

Stealing != Copyright Infringment

Spoken like someone who believes file-sharing is a civil right.

dduardo is literally correct, you know... I do encourage the use of the label "stealing" because I wish to encourage the analogy, and feel the acts are sufficiently similar to permit myself this attempt to project the connotations assoicated with stealing over to illegally copying files.

dduardo, of course, feels otherwise, and the natural (and probably correct) response is to point out that they are not identical acts, attempting to disassociate the two.

It's important to remember is that the label "stealing" is merely an analogy here. Both acts, of course, involve the taking of something for which one does not have the right to take, but as far as I can tell the definition of stealing requires the thing to be no longer possessed by the owner.

 

[dduardo]

Obviously the situation would be different. Can you make your point?
But then again, you aren't asking if the producers and/or distributors
of food, water, or crude oil would allow such "matter-sharing". Nope.

The point is simple: The farmers, water/oil processors and distributors would be out of business, but it doesn't make reproduction immoral.

This is the natural cycle of business. Something is invented, in this case a matter copying machine, that makes the old way obsolete and we move on. There is no point in putting artificial barriers up to protect the old business model.

You do understand what patents and copyrights are, don't you?
As stated, "release the information to the public" is very ambiguous.
There is such a thing as "public domain", but it's a rare exception to
the rule in any capitalist society. Again, can you make your point??

Someone could have patents and copyrights, but that doesn't mean you have to pay anything for them. Let's say your a musician that wrote some songs on paper, implying you have copyright over the material. Now you go into the public streets, lay your guitar case open and start playing. You would expect people to pay to listen, but they don't have to. This is the same situaton when an artist puts out their music on cds, except the artist is singing into an canyon that echos the music perpetually. The people that happen to walk by the canyon are under no obligation to pay, but they can if they like.

In a capitalistic economy the consumer is the one that determines the worth of a product, not the producer of the product.

Also, no one is forcing anyone to write music. If they are expecting to make big money go into another industry. Again, this is just capiltalism at work. Exit the industry if it isn't what you expect.

As evidenced by your very own post! Seriously though, I'm
thinking you do understand the distinction - but you're just
trying to "make a point"? I'm really frustrated by your post.
Intellectual property is just as "real" as the fake "individual"
which results from the creation of a corporation. In spite of
your desires, capitalism in the U.S. is based upon and even
requires the concept of intellectual property. Ever heard of
Ford? He did far more than 'only' produce physical property.

Why does capitalism require intellectual property? Where did you come up with this?

Spoken like someone who believes file-sharing is a civil right.
Here's a better equation for you to chew on:
"Copyright Infringement == Profit Stealing"
Again, I should say that I don't like the RIAA's methods of
maintaining legal control over so much of the industry. But
then again, does any other powerful American organization
behave any differently? Copyright exists for a good reason.
As much as it's abused by those with power, it provides an
adequate amount of power to those who have none.
Again, I should say that I don't like capitalism, or the U.S.
way of doing business. But I also don't like greedy people,
whether they are stealing billions from Enron investors, or
downloading copyrighted material that should be paid for.
It's been tried by many, but always seems to fail miserably.
Attempting to "classify" the illegal duplication of intellectual
property as somehow NOT stealing money, is foolish IMHO.
Oh, but money isn't being stolen, only a bunch of 0s & 1s??
And it isn't being stolen because the original never moved??
I just love capitalism, don't you?

Do the copyright owners have the right to these "lost" profits? How do you define "lost" profits? Are they even guaranteed profits at all? Again, I would like to reiterate the point that it is the consumer that decides the price of a good, not the producer. You could even say that this statement is even more true when there is a lack of scarcity. Why pay for air when there is plenty around me?

 

[Hurkyl]

This is the same situaton when an artist puts out their music on cds, except the artist is singing into an canyon that echos the music perpetually. The people that happen to walk by the canyon are under no obligation to pay, but they can if they like.

No, that is most certainly not what is happening! To run with the analogy...

(1) it is someone other than the artist who sends the music out into the canyon. (Furthermore, it is generally by someone who listened to the music under the very condition that he not send the music out into the canyon)

(2) The others didn't happen to walk by the canyon -- they specifically sought out the canyon, hoping to be able to hear the music without paying.

Sheesh, next thing I know, you'll be telling me that sneaking into a movie theatre to watch a movie is a morally upstanding thing to do.

(P.S. what was your opinion 15 years ago on copying rented VCR tapes? Or video games on floppies?)

The point is simple: The farmers, water/oil processors and distributors would be out of business, but it doesn't make reproduction immoral.

No this doesn't. Now, if you bought a parcel of food from someone under the condition that you would not copy it, that would be immoral.

If you do not consider the very thing which makes file stealing immoral, then of course you will not be able to conclude that it's immoral.

There is no point in putting artificial barriers up to protect the old business model.

(This is, of course, unrelated to the immorality of file stealing)

Sure there is a point -- if there isn't an adequate new business model to replace the old business model, then it is the responsibility of the government to protect the old business model.

I somehow suspect that the current model is better for all than the "wealthy patron" business model of the music industry's past.

In a capitalistic economy the consumer is the one that determines the worth of a product, not the producer of the product.

Again, I would like to reiterate the point that it is the consumer that decides the price of a good, not the producer.

The first is right, the second wrong.

Why pay for air when there is plenty around me?

Or water?

 

[dduardo]

No, that is most certainly not what is happening! To run with the analogy...
(1) it is someone other than the artist who sends the music out into the canyon. (Furthermore, it is generally by someone who listened to the music under the very condition that he not send the music out into the canyon)
(2) The others didn't happen to walk by the canyon -- they specifically sought out the canyon, hoping to be able to hear the music without paying.
Sheesh, next thing I know, you'll be telling me that sneaking into a movie theatre to watch a movie is a morally upstanding thing to do.
(P.S. what was your opinion 15 years ago on copying rented VCR tapes? Or video games on floppies?)

The artists themselves ARE the only ones singing into the canyon. Here is an example that might make it more clear: You release a book and I buy it. When I'm done I give it to my friend using the first sale doctrine. My friend then goes of an gives it to another friend and that friend gives it to another friend, etc ,etc. If repeated enough everyone could in theory read the book with only one paying the author. So when other people purchase the book, you could say the only value they see in the book is having the actual physical existence of object, not the content inside. The content inside is worthless. People at this point have the choice to either give money to the author for the convenience of being able to read it whenever they want OR they could just wait and borrow the book under the first sale doctrine. One might even consider this the library system. Under this system there are laws governing fair use and I am allowed make a photocopy for private study. Once the photocopying is added to the mix you essentially got p2p networks.

On the other hand, if the artist didn't release the book, there wouldn't be the propagation of their information and thus no initial voice. You can then think of the echo in the canyon as the book passing from one reader to another.

This does not mean the author/music writer can not make money. Of course they can. The musician can make money from concerts. How do you duplicate that experience? They can make money selling t-shirts and other memorabilia. Also, people aren't going to stop buying cds anytime soon. Musicians can also get TIPS from website donations. Sure they probably won't be making as much money, but that is the name of the game. Don't like it, change industry. Even before the commericialization of music people still wrote and performed. Not being able to make as much money isn't going to stop people from creating music.

Here is another example: Look at Linux. The whole operating system is free, yet it is a multi-billion dollar industry. How can anyone make money off of it? Easy: Services and value-added packages.

Instead of complaining, these artists should be looking at ways to improve user experience. They should be looking at new revenue streams. They should be looking at different ways to express there art such that the experience can't be as easily duplicated. This is where true progress comes from. Not sitting on old ideals of making it big on old business models. Change and evolution are the drivers of innovation.

Also, let me ask you this: Would it be more acceptable if p2p behaved more physical in that it only let's people check out media from a person's computer. Once the media is checked out the file on the orignal owners computer is encrypted by a key that only the borrow knows. Once the item is returned the file is dycrypted.

No this doesn't. Now, if you bought a parcel of food from someone under the condition that you would not copy it, that would be immoral.
If you do not consider the very thing which makes file stealing immoral, then of course you will not be able to conclude that it's immoral.

Do you think we need a law that makes it illegal to plant seeds from the fruit you buy in the supermarket in order to protect farmers?

The process of decoding media requires copying the file into memory. Therefore you actually have two copies of the file when you are playing back the media. Is this immoral? Should the file on the hard drive be deleted as it goes into RAM?

(This is, of course, unrelated to the immorality of file stealing)
Sure there is a point -- if there isn't an adequate new business model to replace the old business model, then it is the responsibility of the government to protect the old business model.
I somehow suspect that the current model is better for all than the "wealthy patron" business model of the music industry's past.

So why can't they just exit the industry all together? If there was no way in heck my business was going to be profitable that is what I would do.

The first is right, the second wrong.
Or water?

Yes, you're right. Worth != Price. My bad. What I meant is worth for the second one.

Also, your not paying for water your paying for the processing of water. I could easily build a well and get water from there. I could also go to the ocean and desalinate it myself. But having something do the filtering for me and bottling it up is what I pay for.

 

[Hurkyl]

You keep doing it -- you keep blatantly ignoring the core issue here.

When, for example, you purchase a CD, it is done under the term that you cannot make copies without permission of the copyright holder.

In all of your examples, you completely ignore this part of the issue, making them entirely worthless.

If you bought fruit from the supermarket under the terms that you weren't allowed to plant the seeds without the producer's permission, then it would be immoral to then plant the seeds without the producer's permission.

If you bought a book under the terms that you would not circulate it across the entire world, it would then be immoral to circulate that book across the entire world.

Let me ask you this: Would it be more acceptable if p2p behaved more physical in that it only let's people check out media from a person's computer.

Not if you bought the music under the agreement that it would not be distributed in such a fashion.


(Below this point, we're not talking about the immorality of file stealing anymore)

So why can't they just exit the industry all together? If there was no way in heck my business was going to be profitable that is what I would do.

I don't think you quite caught the full scope of my comment...

I rather like the fact that a music industry exists at all (even if I don't particularly like the current incarnation, or the vast majority of the music it produces). I rather like that there are high-quality recording studios, and that there are people who can write music for a living. (The same, of course, applies to other media, such as movies, which I generally like a lot more than the music of today)

I do not think that it would be beneficial to step back a few centuries where the only people who could afford to write great music were the people who could get someone wealthy to fund their work.

Also, your not paying for water your paying for the processing of water. I could easily build a well and get water from there. I could also go to the ocean and desalinate it myself. But having something do the filtering for me and bottling it up is what I pay for.

Then why do you advocate not paying for what is essentialy the same thing in the case of music? With every product, you have a fixed cost and a marginal cost. In the case of bottled water, if enough people buy, the marginal profits will cover the fixed cost.

You're proposing we should adopt a model with no marginal profits, and thus no way to cover the fixed cost, except through charity. (Again, the "wealthy patron" model)


I think it would be great to adopt a model where music, video games, movies, et cetera could just be copied by all -- but the naive implementation of this model would eliminate the ability to cover the costs incurred in the production of such things. Therefore, I feel the current system is more beneficial to all, and should be retained.

And, of course, you're completely neglecting the fact that people can, and do, write music, video games, movies, et cetera that can be freely copied and distributed. In other words, if people abided by the copyright laws, we get the benefits of both worlds, and I'm fairly convinced that situation is superior to the alternative you propose.

 

[dduardo]

You keep doing it -- you keep blatantly ignoring the core issue here.
When, for example, you purchase a CD, it is done under the term that you cannot make copies without permission of the copyright holder.
In all of your examples, you completely ignore this part of the issue, making them entirely worthless.
If you bought fruit from the supermarket under the terms that you weren't allowed to plant the seeds without the producer's permission, then it would be immoral to then plant the seeds without the producer's permission.
If you bought a book under the terms that you would not circulate it across the entire world, it would then be immoral to circulate that book across the entire world.

I am allowed to make archivial copies for backup purposes. There is nothing morally wrong with that. This activity falls under fair use.

I am also allowed to resell what I purchased. There is nothing morally wrong with that. This activity falls under the first sale doctrine.

I think the real question is: If you make a backup of your media under fair use is the first sale doctrine null and void?

If the law isn't clear about this, then there is nothing morally wrong.

 

[Human Being]

I am allowed to make archivial copies for backup purposes. There is nothing morally wrong with that. This activity falls under fair use.

Sure - but you are NOT allowed to distribute copies of your backup.
The same laws that apply to the original, apply to the backup, yes?
Don't even pretend that filesharing your "archival" copies is moral...

I am also allowed to resell what I purchased. There is nothing morally wrong with that. This activity falls under the first sale doctrine.

Sure - but you are NOT allowed to distribute copies of your backup.
The same laws that apply to the original, apply to the backup, yes?
Don't even pretend that filesharing your "archival" copies is moral...

I think the real question is: If you make a backup of your media under fair use is the first sale doctrine null and void?
If the law isn't clear about this, then there is nothing morally wrong.

In no way are you correct.

The immorality of the act of filesharing ISN'T dependent upon
its legal status. Even if someone "figured out" a way to legally
fileshare all their copyrighted media, it would still be immoral...

Why do people keep thinking that the legality of an act is the
determiner of whether that act is moral? Likewise the morality
of an act isn't necessarily the determiner of whether it's legal.

Consider the pornography industry - it can be argued that the
"fantasy" created by pornographic stimuli is counterproductive
to the formation of healthy enduring male-female relationships.

In said case, while it is clearly legal to produce or consume it,
pornography isn't automatically moral simply because it's legal.
Thus, people should cease to associate legality with morality!

Let me restate what I have already said in a previous post, as
it might help you, dduardo, directly address the central issue:

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.

 

[dduardo]

1) So is it legal to make a copy of a cd for archival purposes and then sell the original for nothing. Then the person who buys it makes a copy of the cd for archival purposes and then sells the original for nothing. And so on and so forth?

2) How do you differentiate between the archival copy and the original if you bought the mp3 online?

3) Let me bring back my imaginary matter copying machine: If you create an exact duplicate of the cd you purchased which one is the original and which one is the archival copy?

4) If you can't differentiate in either part 2 or 3 then the "copy" and the "original" are both fair game in part 1.

4) I still don't understand why you equate stealing with copyright infringement. Is the artist losing something when you download their album? And don't tell me lost potential sale because you don't know if that sale would have existed in the first place.

The morality of copyright infringement is based purely on following the law. If there was no such thing as copyright law, this debate wouldn't be happening. The same thing couldn't be said for something like the death penalty and many other topics of life.