Ethics and Piracy

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by skywalker
Actually, it isn't - the rationale behind downloading child porn being illegal is that a crime must have been committed in order for the pictures to be available. It has nothing to do with "objectionable material".

No. There is nothing illegal in possessing pictures or video of an illegal act. This only applies to child pornography. I believe Agathon to be right on this one.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel

No it doesn't matter how you acquire the cd. Gift, found, stolen, whatever, when you reproduce it, you are liable for damages, at least in the US. Granted, if its stolen you will be subject to criminal penalties...

I accept that's what the law says, but that is not what this argument is about.

Skywalker reckons that the music on the CD is not being treated as property. I say it is.

He says that restrictions on the use of the information on the CD are not property rights (i.e. the information doesn't belong to the artist) since all that happens is that you agree with the artist not to do certain things with the information in exchange for obtaining it.

But by picking up and playing an abandoned CD I make no contract of any sort with the artist. We can of course pretend that I do so (which is what the law does), but I don't. The only way I could is if the CD, as an inanimate object could contract with me - but inanimate objects cannot contract.

The way out of this is to treat what is on the CD as property. Then if I take it and copy it I have violated a property right. But SW denies that it is being treated as property.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


You're not forming the agreement with an inimate object, you're forming it with the publisher of the album. and the voluntary agreement is you using the cd. Your agreement is inherent in you using the cd. A contract does not require writing or oral communication, it merely requires an affirmative act on your part. Using the cd is the affirmative act. At least in the US it is, I have no knowledge of non-US law.

The law says that my agreement is inherent in using the CD. But it manifestly is not. The law is effectively saying white is black. I formed no agreement with the publisher, nor did I agree to let him have any sort of claim over me. If I buy it with an understanding of the contract, I do - otherwise, no.



Remember, this is an ethical debate. The fictional absurdities of the law are irrelevant.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Agathon
The way out of this is to treat what is on the CD as property. Then if I take it and copy it I have violated a property right. But SW denies that it is being treated as property.

Oh duh, I see. I'm not sure why he argues that its not property...

[Whaleboy]

Now we know what you've been downloading.

Crap... this is public information now...

My point is that your personal morality is not a legal excuse for evading the law. You are a relativist - you know arguing actual MORALITY is pointless.

No, but it is my excuse for evading the law. Morality and philosophical beliefs are what I'd describe as on a spectrum of emotivism, while they may not be directly prized apart they are different, and I use both to justify that. I believe that morality exists for me, as it does for you, but merely as a function of my own idiosyncracies, as with yours. Let's not get into this .

What is your point? The contract may be "irrelevent" to you, but by BUYING THE CD AND LISTENING TO IT YOU HAVE AGREED TO IT. If you don't agree to it, then you have STOLEN THE CD because the owner did not willingly give it to you. If you hacked the music from a server, then you are guilty of the laws about hacking.

Let me put this to you. The copying does not occur until the transaction is complete. I am nice and legit when I hand over the extortionate amount of cash. The CD is henceforth mine. My property. I paid that sum for the plastic shiny circle that still beeped when it went through the scanners at the doors even though the incompetent fool cleared it . I take my CD home, and copy it. My intent cannot be proved at the point of sale, your point is irrelevant. I paid for the CD and they completed the transaction with smiles, courtesy, ease and speed. Didn't seem like I was stealing it, since they got their money and I got my plastic circle.

Your analogy is servers is flawed because hacking into ones computer is like walking into a shop and pocketing a disk, walking out without paying etc.

Note that throughout this analogy, the status of the information on the disk remains unchanged.

So do you feel free to break any contracts you make when you feel like it? Of course, the adage goes, a contract is made to be broken. However, in the real world, breaking a contract results in sometimes serious repurcussions, I hope that you can avoid such problems in the future.

Correct on all counts. I will not maintain a contract for the contract's sake. I will only maintain it if it benefits me in some discernable way.

You can't just "break the agreement", because IF YOU DID YOU HAVE STOLEN. You haven't stolen the music, you have stolen the CD!

You have a funny definition of stolen! The exchange of resources has been complete. My business with the record company is over. I know what you're getting at, but it's like this too: I don't read the contract or the copyright conditions on the CD. I'm not aware they even exist. I'm too long sighted to read the small print anyway, and I don't wear my glasses because I look ridiculous. The contract does not apply .

Another issue I have with small print and deliberate attempts to hide terms and conditions is that I find that to be a form of deception, where the sale is made on the premise that a person does not know all the implications. It's quite dangerous really.

They DIDN'T release it to the public. They release it to those private individuals who agree to their requirements.

Then why is it played on the radio? For free. On the TV? For free. Anyone can walk in and pick up the information, for they merely pay for the plastic circle. The information on it is free, and if some magical means existed by which one could instantly have the information whence released in public transplanted into ones mind, the information would still be completely free. This seems to be the most logically consistent position here.

I'm not justifying the rationale, I'm just basing the statement on it. I'm saying IF this law is OK, it would seem to be that this OTHER law is ALSO OK.

But neither law is ok.

Depends on whether the contract stipulates that you are allowed to do that

Jesus this is getting ridiculous!

Where is it written that philosophers ought to receive compensation for the books that they write?

Same argument applies. I am a writer, I have a vested interest in me being wrong here, yet I still support this position.

are you purposely trying to be dense ? Not all contracts do not require writing. In fact, not many actually do. Many don't even need an oral commitment. ( that...doesn't sound good).
By using the cd you have formed a contract, what don't you understand, or is it more a philisophical difference with the state of the law?

See no evil? . If a contract is voluntary and I am unaware of it, or all of it, then it does not apply. Call it false advertising. My argument still holds of course were it overtly on display.

Yes you did, by USING THE CD! If you don't agree to the contract, you don't use the CD.

But like I said, the premise for that contract is bull, and since I break it when the CD is my property, it is not theft, also since the information, we have established, is free.

The idea that the CD is a service provided and can be terminated by the record companies? Well perhaps. The information still remains free, and I contend that any material that I pay for on a non-return basis is in fact my property, only their service regarding that, for example, a cell phone, is what one is paying for. That point is thus also null.

[Whaleboy]

Remember, this is an ethical debate. The fictional absurdities of the law are irrelevant.

Hey!!! That was MY cheesy retort! jk

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Agathon


The law says that my agreement is inherent in using the CD. But it manifestly is not. The law is effectively saying white is black. I formed no agreement with the publisher, nor did I agree to let him have any sort of claim over me. If I buy it with an understanding of the contract, I do - otherwise, no.

Remember, this is an ethical debate. The fictional absurdities of the law are irrelevant.

You must find me to be pretty absurd then

Well, unfortunately I can really only speak in legal terms, as that is what I am.

I will say that I think the making and breaking of contracts are an ethical issue, therefore how a contract is formed should be examined. But I digress...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
No, but it is my excuse for evading the law. Morality and philosophical beliefs are what I'd describe as on a spectrum of emotivism, while they may not be directly prized apart they are different, and I use both to justify that. I believe that morality exists for me, as it does for you, but merely as a function of my own idiosyncracies, as with yours. Let's not get into this .

Well, my excuse for breaking the law against murder is the Sauron taught me to kill all sentient beings...

Let me put this to you. The copying does not occur until the transaction is complete. I am nice and legit when I hand over the extortionate amount of cash. The CD is henceforth mine. My property. I paid that sum for the plastic shiny circle that still beeped when it went through the scanners at the doors even though the incompetent fool cleared it . I take my CD home, and copy it. My intent cannot be proved at the point of sale, your point is irrelevant. I paid for the CD and they completed the transaction with smiles, courtesy, ease and speed. Didn't seem like I was stealing it, since they got their money and I got my plastic circle.

Your analogy is servers is flawed because hacking into ones computer is like walking into a shop and pocketing a disk, walking out without paying etc.

Note that throughout this analogy, the status of the information on the disk remains unchanged.

The point is that the transaction is NOT complete when you hand over the money - the transaction is complete when you agree to abide by certain limitations on your use of the CD (such as not copying its contents).

You have a funny definition of stolen! The exchange of resources has been complete. My business with the record company is over. I know what you're getting at, but it's like this too: I don't read the contract or the copyright conditions on the CD. I'm not aware they even exist. I'm too long sighted to read the small print anyway, and I don't wear my glasses because I look ridiculous. The contract does not apply .

No, I don't. Part of the transaction is the stipulation that you will not copy the contents of the CD. If you violate that, then you have stolen the CD because you acquired it without the consent of the owners (as the consent is conditional to you abiding by the agreement). Just like if you take out a loan, you can't just say "ok, the transaction is over, I don't feel like abiding by my agreement to pay back the money with interest".

Then why is it played on the radio? For free. On the TV? For free. Anyone can walk in and pick up the information, for they merely pay for the plastic circle. The information on it is free, and if some magical means existed by which one could instantly have the information whence released in public transplanted into ones mind, the information would still be completely free. This seems to be the most logically consistent position here.

You are allowed to record things off of the radio, so your argument is meaningless

But neither law is ok.

Which doesn't invalidate my statement at all - I was merely speculating that IF such-and-such was true, THEN something-else was ALSO true. I was not making a claim about the actual truth of either, just noticing a relationship

See no evil? . If a contract is voluntary and I am unaware of it, or all of it, then it does not apply. Call it false advertising. My argument still holds of course were it overtly on display.

You are OBVIOUSLY aware of the contract - how else would you be arguing about it?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel

Oh duh, I see. I'm not sure why he argues that its not property...

Because he's realised that information is the sort of thing that by its very nature resists being turned into property - the old "information wants to be free" thing.


Skywalker -

Let's say you sell Whaleboy a shovel with the express agreement between you that it is not to be used to shovel ****.

After a couple of years Whaleboy buys a new shovel and throws the old one away. I, Agathon, find the shovel at the dump and take it home to shovel **** with. Where did I agree with you that I won't shovel **** with it? Does the shovel magically become a non-**** shovel without my agreement, just by my picking it up?

[Whaleboy]

Well, unfortunately I can really only speak in legal terms, as that is what I am.

Then in that case...

I will say that I think the making and breaking of contracts are an ethical issue, therefore how a contract is formed should be examined. But I digress...

...arrange a plasticine deathmatch between Aristotle and Bentham...

[Kuciwalker]

There is no problem in that situation - I never stipulated that he couldn't transfer the property without tranfering the contract, or that he couldn't dispose of his property.

EDIT: re Agathon

[Agathon]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


You must find me to be pretty absurd then

Well, unfortunately I can really only speak in legal terms, as that is what I am.

I will say that I think the making and breaking of contracts are an ethical issue, therefore how a contract is formed should be examined. But I digress...

I agree that it is an ethical issue and that such an examination is necessary. I don't think it will save the **** shovel (see above).

At least you are well paid for your absurdities.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Let me put this to you. The copying does not occur until the transaction is complete. I am nice and legit when I hand over the extortionate amount of cash. The CD is henceforth mine. My property. I paid that sum for the plastic shiny circle that still beeped when it went through the scanners at the doors even though the incompetent fool cleared it . I take my CD home, and copy it. My intent cannot be proved at the point of sale, your point is irrelevant. I paid for the CD and they completed the transaction with smiles, courtesy, ease and speed.

The cd physically is yours, the information you do not own. Am I making sense?

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Correct on all counts. I will not maintain a contract for the contract's sake. I will only maintain it if it benefits me in some discernable way.

Keeping a contract for contract's sake is only something a fool would do.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
You have a funny definition of stolen! The exchange of resources has been complete. My business with the record company is over. I know what you're getting at, but it's like this too: I don't read the contract or the copyright conditions on the CD. I'm not aware they even exist. I'm too long sighted to read the small print anyway, and I don't wear my glasses because I look ridiculous. The contract does not apply .

Cute. you realize its irrelvant that you actually read that? (and if you get called into court, I will send the authorities this link as proof you know it exists

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Then why is it played on the radio? For free. On the TV? For free. Anyone can walk in and pick up the information, for they merely pay for the plastic circle.

you're a smart guy, I know this was mainly rhetorical

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker
There is no problem in that situation - I never stipulated that he couldn't transfer the property without tranfering the contract, or that he couldn't dispose of his property.

EDIT: re Agathon

Okey doke. Then it's OK for me to rip the CD and share it? Or do you now think that the information is property?

[Ben Kenobi]

I am a writer, I have a vested interest in me being wrong here, yet I still support this position.

So do you hope to live off the goodwill of others?