Ethics and Piracy

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by 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?

A CD you found on the street? If you have to do some sort of hacking to get the info on it, then it would be illegal due to other laws.

EDIT: thought the fact that you know there's almost certainly some sort of contract restricting the distribution of the music on the CD could make it a gray area...

[Agathon]

I say, Ben, I never realized that Alec Guinness had such a great pair of knockers.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker

A CD you found on the street? If you have to do some sort of hacking to get the info on it, then it would be illegal due to other laws.

But I don't. In any case, we are talking about morality here.

[Kuciwalker]

Hacking isn't immoral?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Then in that case...



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

alas but its been a while since I've last sculpted and I fear that I would do neither the justice they deserve.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Agathon


But I don't. In any case, we are talking about morality here.

I may be missing the point, but does finding a book on the street gives you the right to photocopy it?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


I may be missing the point, but does finding a book on the street gives you the right to photocopy it?

I hesitate to say anything, lest I am smote by philosopher logic but you have the right to photocopy a book that you find, you just don't have the right to distribute the photocopies. And if you return the book you must destroy the photocopies. Or else your soul will burn in hell. Legally speaking that is

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker
Hacking isn't immoral?

How is ripping a CD hacking? That's allowed.

If you say it is, then I could just copy the CD to another CD and then rip that one. Againb, unless the information is property, there's no prob.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Agathon


How is ripping a CD hacking? That's allowed.

If you say it is, then I could just copy the CD to another CD and then rip that one. Againb, unless the information is property, there's no prob.

ripping a cd is entirely legal. You are allowed to make back up copies for yourself. Its the distribution that's illegal.

[Kuciwalker]

How is ripping a CD hacking?

I dunno, I'm talking about IF here. I think it is (because if the thing is encrypted or whatever then it is essentially the same process as hacking into a server or something).

If you say it is, then I could just copy the CD to another CD and then rip that one. Againb, unless the information is property, there's no prob.

Unless the copying was considered "hacking".

EDIT: again, I'm talking about IF here

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


I may be missing the point, but does finding a book on the street gives you the right to photocopy it?

Morally speaking, it doesn't if the information in the book is property. Otherwise it appears so - unless someone can show how you agreed not to, without actually entering into an agreement with another person.

Legally speaking - AATW is right.

[Whaleboy]

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

But that lacks consistency, I'm inevitably drawn to the logical conclusion and not merely a moral one that I shouldn't kill. Of course, this is not an ideal world is it?

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).

No, the transaction is complete when the exchange of resources is complete. Furthermore, by them selling me the CD, they sell it under the condition, as far as I am aware, that there is no contract, or in a second scenario, the contract is void. After all, why sell it to me??

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

No, your point there strengthens my argument.

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

And I was taking it to its conclusion...

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

Hypothetical situation of course. But it is true though. I am "vaguely" aware that it exists, but have never read one, and will not read one should someone post it here.

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

The CD is physically mine, as with the results of any material transaction, the information is no-ones.

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

Then I certainly won't keep one for the RIAA's or BPI's!!

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

But don't read it... that would be one interesting court case!

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?

I hear the sound of distant circumcisions...

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

Don't be ridiculous. I'd whore myself to the forces of capitalism.

Hacking isn't immoral?

Hacking and copying cd's you have bought are two completely different kettle of fish.

alas but its been a while since I've last sculpted and I fear that I would do neither the justice they deserve.

Oh please? I want to see the Felicific Faust rip out the black putty heart of Aristotle...

I may be missing the point, but does finding a book on the street gives you the right to photocopy it?

Indeed, by our arguments, buying a book gives one that right. I'm happy with that.

I dunno, I'm talking about IF here. I think it is (because if the thing is encrypted or whatever then it is essentially the same process as hacking into a server or something).

Hardly, once it resides on your property it's as good as having it in a language you cannot understand. Learn the language. Your argument would only hold if the CD was on a return-loan basis, or otherwise still the property of the record company, which I hope we have shown to be a fallacy.

Morally speaking, it doesn't if the information in the book is property. Otherwise it appears so - unless someone can show how you agreed not to, without actually entering into an agreement with another person.

But the info in the book is free, the paper is not. Same situation as CD's still applies imo, as with any means of transmitting information.

Legally speaking - AATW is right.

Undoubtably, but this is not a legal debate.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Undoubtably, but this is not a legal debate.

My apologies for turning it into one, but in my world, its not so easy to seperate ethics from the rule of law and the real world. I am not a mere sheep however, I just work within the confines of the dreaded system. I personally detest the RIAA and would never help them prosecute their claims, unless I was well paid .

My ethical argument against piracy is that I believe man is worth their work. At the end of someone's life, the only thing they leave behind is their legacy, through descendents and their work. If I value someone's work, no matter what shape it takes, I believe he should be paid for it. In my life, this belief trumps ripping off bastard corporations who collude to drive up prices.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
But that lacks consistency, I'm inevitably drawn to the logical conclusion and not merely a moral one that I shouldn't kill. Of course, this is not an ideal world is it?

Wait, you turned some is-statement into an ought-statement (particularly, one ought not to kill)? Kiss your relativism goodbye

No, the transaction is complete when the exchange of resources is complete. Furthermore, by them selling me the CD, they sell it under the condition, as far as I am aware, that there is no contract, or in a second scenario, the contract is void. After all, why sell it to me??

Look at it this way - you are not bound by the contract in the sense that you will be sent to jail. However, you can be sued for breach of contract (DUH).

No, your point there strengthens my argument.

Wrong - my point is that you aren't even addressing the situation, that is, there is a contractual agreement prohibiting reproduction and distribution. In the absense of that there is no conflict and thus the argument is pointless.

Hypothetical situation of course. But it is true though. I am "vaguely" aware that it exists, but have never read one, and will not read one should someone post it here.

If you know the contract is there, but choose not to read it, it is YOUR fault.

[Whaleboy]

My ethical argument against piracy is that I believe man is worth their work. At the end of someone's life, the only thing they leave behind is their legacy, through descendents and their work.

Correct, but that is best preserved in the public domain. What is left is their work, not the money that is generated, for that is frittered away by the grandchildren on schemes of of sex and slow suicide...

Wait, you turned some is-statement into an ought-statement (particularly, one ought not to kill)? Kiss your relativism goodbye

Ooops... typo. My opinion of course. I can offer a more logical argument for that than a mere emotional one.

Of course, they're both extensions of the same thing.

Look at it this way - you are not bound by the contract in the sense that you will be sent to jail. However, you can be sued for breach of contract (DUH).

I believe the most appropriate term at this juncture is bleh.

Wrong - my point is that you aren't even addressing the situation, that is, there is a contractual agreement prohibiting reproduction and distribution. In the absense of that there is no conflict and thus the argument is pointless.

Indeed, but of course, what one hand giveth, the other taketh away. Free on the radio but not on CD? Another inconsistency? Perhaps not, one isn't allowed to copy from the radio iirc.

If you know the contract is there, but choose not to read it, it is YOUR fault.

But I am not signing it, I am not acknowledging it, nor am I being told to read it as I buy it. This point is academic though. The contract is irrelevant.

Anyways I'm off to bed. Nite nite chaps!