Ethics and Piracy

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by skywalker

Think we care if the judge cares?

You are a relativist - you know arguing actual MORALITY is pointless.

Only in so much that arguing anything is.

[Kuciwalker]

But the contract to me is irrelevant. I buy a cd, god forbid, put it in my player and listen to it. I am paying nearly £15 for a plastic circle. I consider the information on it free and if there is a method to extract a copy of that information and obtain it for free, I shall. No amount of contractual masturbation is going to change my view, quite simply, I am merely paying my money for the material, and an agreement that I do not believe in (and have not signed) is irrelevant to me. I would only agree to buy the disk under the condition that I would not copy it etc if there were consequences should I break that contract. Luckily for me, as of yet, the record companies have not impeded on me.

Put simply, in other words, the small print means nothing to me. The music does. The disk is the means to that end, and if I find a better and cheaper means, I shall use it. I can say this because like Agathon, I make the distinction between information and material resources (infinite and finite respectively).

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.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker

If the person owned the CD and you kept it, you stole it If the person gave you the CD he is either a) violating the contract or b) (if the contract is transferable) giving you the contract along with the CD.

That's not my case. In my case the person has voluntarily abandoned the CD.

The CD is a PHYSICAL OBJECT. It is not possible to leave vibrations in the air on the ground.

So... I still don't see how I can be subject to contract without my agreement, or how an inanimate object can contract with me.

Leaving child porn around is a separate issue, since that is not an issue of property rights or of contracts, but of possessing objectionable material.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Too bad for this world. Mine's better

Probably right

Originally posted by Whaleboy
But the contract to me is irrelevant. I buy a cd, god forbid, put it in my player and listen to it. I am paying nearly £15 for a plastic circle. I consider the information on it free and if there is a method to extract a copy of that information and obtain it for free, I shall. No amount of contractual masturbation is going to change my view, quite simply, I am merely paying my money for the material, and an agreement that I do not believe in (and have not signed) is irrelevant to me. I would only agree to buy the disk under the condition that I would not copy it etc if there were consequences should I break that contract. Luckily for me, as of yet, the record companies have not impeded on me.

Put simply, in other words, the small print means nothing to me. The music does.

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.

[Kuciwalker]

And I quite happily break that agreement. I do so on two grounds: the first that it is a stupid agreement by me, and the second that it is an illogical notion to maintain. I have no puerile sense of honour to the RIAA or BPI, so I'm happy to break it, and admit that in the open. I am happy to take advantage of others that concur via services like Limewire or Kazaa.

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!

See above. They release it into the public, they cannot restrict it, they lose control over it. They release it into the public domain, ideally I should be able to snap my fingers and have it waiting pert and firm on my hard drive.

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

That is a flawed law, an idiotic attempt to sting those who have the demand, whereas it is those continuing the supply that are perpetrating the crime.

Of course, child abuse is a clear cut crime, aiding the distribution of information most certainly is not and should not be viewed as such.

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.

[Kuciwalker]

That's not my case. In my case the person has voluntarily abandoned the CD.

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

[Ben Kenobi]

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

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

[Kuciwalker]

So... I still don't see how I can be subject to contract without my agreement, or how an inanimate object can contract with me.

You aren't subject to a contract without your agreement - you are subject to a contract WITH your agreement. If you don't agree, you don't get the CD.

Leaving child porn around is a separate issue, since that is not an issue of property rights or of contracts, but of possessing objectionable material.

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".

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Agathon


Then the law is obviously absurd. I have signed no contract, nor made any agreement with anyone.

Imagine if someone treated garden implements this way. For example I go down to the dump and find an old hoe. The idea that by picking up and hoeing with it, I magically make a contract with someone else is ridiculous.

Inanimate objects cannot be party to contracts, nor force them on others.

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?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker

That's not my case. In my case the person has voluntarily abandoned the CD.

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

As a matter of fact it does not.

[Kuciwalker]

As a matter of fact it does not.

Then there's no problem, DUH

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Agathon


As a matter of fact it does not.

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...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel

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?

A contract requires a voluntary agreement of some sort.

The law says I have formed a contract by using the CD, but that is absurd because I didn't agree to it. That's why, when you install software, you agree to the license. So yes, in this case the law is an ass.

My point is that there is no agreement here on my part. I can't form agreements with inanimate objects. SW wants to say that the material in question is not being treated as property. I say it is - that's all the argument is about.

[Kuciwalker]

The law says I have formed a contract by using the CD, but that is absurd because I didn't agree to it.

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

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Agathon


A contract requires a voluntary agreement of some sort.

The law says I have formed a contract by using the CD, but that is absurd because I didn't agree to it. That's why, when you install software, you agree to the license. So yes, in this case the law is an ass.

My point is that there is no agreement here on my part. I can't form agreements with inanimate objects. SW wants to say that the material in question is not being treated as property. I say it is - that's all the argument is about.

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.