Ethics and Piracy

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by monkspider
I would argue that NOT sharing MP3 files, when you easily have the means to do so, is immoral.

what is the argument?

[Sava]

yavoon: so you don't agree with me? yet you just repeated exactly my point...

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Sava
yavoon: so you don't agree with me? yet you just repeated exactly my point...

yes. I did.....


(no I didnt, but honestly its hard to keep up w/ sava when he makes canned posts like this and puts smilies on them)

[Kuciwalker]

I think that piracy and such is not "illegal" in the sense that there are laws prohibiting it (though I'm sure there are, they are redundant). It is violating a contract; when you buy a computer game or a CD, you are making a contract with the person who "owns" the material on the CD. If you do not abide by the terms of the contract, the owner has every right to sue you. While the person downloading pirated software is not technically violating the contract (as he has not signed the contract) it is immoral in that you are assisting another in violating a contract.

[Sava]

Originally posted by skywalker
I think that piracy and such is not "illegal" in the sense that there are laws prohibiting it (though I'm sure there are, they are redundant). It is violating a contract; when you buy a computer game or a CD, you are making a contract with the person who "owns" the material on the CD. If you do not abide by the terms of the contract, the owner has every right to sue you. While the person downloading pirated software is not technically violating the contract (as he has not signed the contract) it is immoral in that you are assisting another in violating a contract.

that's crap... I'm not signing any contract when I buy a CD or game. I'm buying something and it's mine. What I do with it is my business. If I sell copies, then I am violating piracy-laws. But allowing my computer to be open on the internet (sharing) is not illegal nor immoral.

Acquiring media for free without compensation to the artist, in general, is immoral... but only in context. If we're talking about a starving artist, that's one thing... but to hear *******s like Metallica whining about their excess wealth is sickening. They already have adequate compensation for their work. And considering nothing physical is being stolen from them, I don't feel they have any standing.

In addition, the priority given to the prosecution of children downloading music is sickening. Society should use it's resources to prosecute crimes that are detrimental to society. Sorry, but Metallica having to settle for a $45 million dollar home instead of a $55 million dollar home, doesn't quite get my heart bleeding.

And one last thing... more than 95% of the stuff I have downloaded I would never have bought in the first place. So how are these artists/companies losing money when I wouldn't have bought their **** in the first place?

What about libraries? They "share" music, videos, software, etc... are they pirates?

Information is not the property of anyone. As long as these artists are being compensated for their music (in enormous excess in fact...) I see no problem with file-sharing.

[DaShi]

You can sell copies, but it is illegal for someone else to buy them.

[Nubclear]

The barriers of information flow are being torn down....Movies, games, books, music, pictures; they all flow through networks at speeds previously unimaginable and advances in technology will only help this.
Instead of stifiling this flow, what the industry must do it adapt to it.

(I feel like some SMACX guy now )

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sava
that's crap... I'm not signing any contract when I buy a CD or game. I'm buying something and it's mine. What I do with it is my business. If I sell copies, then I am violating piracy-laws. But allowing my computer to be open on the internet (sharing) is not illegal nor immoral.

YES YOU ARE. Read the license. You agree, by buying the game, to abide by the terms of that license.

Even if we accept what you say is correct - that you currently AREN'T signing a contract - then my point stands. That is, if they require to to make a contractual agreement in order to acquire the CD or whatever, then yes, you HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT.

Acquiring media for free without compensation to the artist, in general, is immoral... but only in context. If we're talking about a starving artist, that's one thing... but to hear *******s like Metallica whining about their excess wealth is sickening. They already have adequate compensation for their work. And considering nothing physical is being stolen from them, I don't feel they have any standing.

So it's OK to steal money from rich people's bank accounts, but not poor people's?

[Nubclear]

Yes. Especially if your poor.

[Mercator]

@Gibsie:

@DaShi:

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I think an alternative for the record companies is cheaper albums, because £14 is far too much, and an excessive profit, even after marketting, royalties, cost of production, recording, mastering etc etc. They should also bundle merchandise with them, because the record companies make a hell of a lot more profit on that.

Does that mean you pirate music, or think it is acceptible for people to pirate music, simply because of the price of albums? If that's the case, maybe you should just try a little harder finding a cheaper store. Or does it only make it understandable?

Originally posted by Sava
[...] one is not morally compelled to follow an immoral law.

But that doesn't make it any more legal, does it? If that's your opinion, how can you expect anyone to follow the law?
The only legal way to resist an in your opinion immoral law is to get it changed.

Originally posted by Sava
And one last thing... more than 95% of the stuff I have downloaded I would never have bought in the first place. So how are these artists/companies losing money when I wouldn't have bought their **** in the first place?

What, do you imagine, would you have done if the Internet didn't exist?

[Adagio]

With all the bad games/songs/movies being released these days, I see piracy as something that protects the consumers of getting ripped off.

If it wasn't because of piracy I would probably have bought lots of crap. You know... games were you just install it, play it once, and then uninstall it again... or cd's which you've only played once...
Piracy helps those who makes good software/music. If it wasn't because I somehow "got" Civilization 1 back in the days, I would never have bought (or even known about) Civilzation...

Sure... when looking at my statistics over the past 5 years, I have pirated more software/music, while I have bought less of it. There's two reasons for this:
1) Quality (for movies/software/music) has gone down... WAY DOWN... specially in the games/music industry
2) I've got less money to spend these days, so when buying something, I have to make sure it's quality...


Oh, and piracy for music (on my part) has gone down very much, because of the lack of it... During the last year I have only downloaded about 10-15 songs (Where most of them are not avaliable to buy in Denmark)

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Sava
that's crap... I'm not signing any contract when I buy a CD or game. I'm buying something and it's mine.

Sort of. The physical cd etc is yours. You however are only a licensee of the contents. And contracts don't need to be signed to be enforceable, by using the contents of the cd, you are consenting to be bound to the license.

Originally posted by Sava
Acquiring media for free without compensation to the artist, in general, is immoral... but only in context. If we're talking about a starving artist, that's one thing... but to hear *******s like Metallica whining about their excess wealth is sickening. They already have adequate compensation for their work.

Why are you the arbiter of "adequate compenation"? Who are you to determine another's value (beyond your own economic investment that is)? Isn't that for the free market to determine?

Originally posted by Sava
In addition, the priority given to the prosecution of children downloading music is sickening. Society should use it's resources to prosecute crimes that are detrimental to society. Sorry, but Metallica having to settle for a $45 million dollar home instead of a $55 million dollar home, doesn't quite get my heart bleeding.

Have people been prosecuted in criminal court? I have only seen tort actions that I can recall. If they are being arrested and charged, then I agree with you, but I don't think that's the case.

Originally posted by Sava
Information is not the property of anyone. As long as these artists are being compensated for their music (in enormous excess in fact...) I see no problem with file-sharing.

But artists aren't being compensated when people illegally download their music.

[CerberusIV]

Laws are there to protect the interests of a group or section of society (often a large majority). In this case the law is being applied to protect the financial interest of the people who make money from selling a product.

The problem is that they are seeking to charge more for that product than the market will willingly pay, or in some cases can pay. So substantial numbers of people choose to break that particular law.

There are alternative methods of distributing this material, such as on-line stores, which do encourage people to purchase it legitimately. Much of the problem is in fact criminal piracy on a large scale yet individual consumers are being targeted as a softer touch.

So the law is being applied to protect the position of a minority which could be protected in other, more widely acceptable, ways at the expense of the majority. Such application of the law is unjust and usually fails from a historical perspective. I do not consider it unethical to break an unjust law. Therefore piracy for personal and home use is not unethical. If the material were available at a more affordable and reasonable cost (and the people who originated it actually got rather more of the profits) then it would be unethical.

Disclaimer: I have never pirated material through file sharing because I am too lazy and also too mean to pay for anything more than a dial up connection. So I have not actually broken this particular law. I would if I were really interested in the stuff you can get.

[Whaleboy]

Gentlemen: What is morality here?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
The problem is that they are seeking to charge more for that product than the market will willingly pay, or in some cases can pay. So substantial numbers of people choose to break that particular law.

So the law is being applied to protect the position of a minority which could be protected in other, more widely acceptable, ways at the expense of the majority. Such application of the law is unjust and usually fails from a historical perspective. I do not consider it unethical to break an unjust law. Therefore piracy for personal and home use is not unethical. If the material were available at a more affordable and reasonable cost (and the people who originated it actually got rather more of the profits) then it would be unethical.

So its unjust to set a certain price on an item, a luxury item at that? And who determines what a fair price for a luxury item is? If I'm a business, then I set my prices according to what the public will pay. If they pay the 15 dollars, then great. If not, then I might have to cut prices. What is unjust is getting something for nothing. What is unjust is taking someone's work without paying for it.