RealTechNews.com - Independent Tech

Comments on this Item:

First of all, I think they're being a little generous with their use of the word "hacker". Just using a P2P app does not make someone a hacker that I'm aware of. That aside, I'm not a big fan of downloading music and movies mainly because it's not really any better than stealing. I'm a poor college student and I can somehow live without owning all of the latest CD's, DVD's, games, and software. And that isn't to say I don't enjoy music, movies, and games either. My X800 Pro and Logitech Z-680 speakers would suggest otherwise. I think I only own about 2 days worth of music, but I enjoy it that much more because I worked for it and paid the artists. You really don't "need" to pirate software either. You can find free software out there for just about anything...even on Windows.

# posted by Anonymous 9:40 PM

When I was a kid, and a computer bug meant that a butterfly or somethin similar had flown or crawled into one of the computer's relay banks, being a "hacker" was something to be proud about. It meant you could take next to nothing in technology and do or make almost anything from it. You were a miracle worker and companies actively sought you out.

Then the media got hold of the word during one of the first virus/DOS situations and it became a condemnation of talent. It's the same thing starting to happen with P2P software, but it's the way the media's simplistic grasp of concepts tend to push things. (And those with a simplistic grasp of concepts tend to accept them.)

The benefit or harm is not in the ownership of a tool, but the use you put it too.

The other part of what's going on over there has to do with the overall attitude of entitlements which has now permeated technology (most recently with this $100 computer brainwash). But I think that borders on politics and I'm constrained in that area. You'll have to make up your own mind. ;-)

# posted by Bill 10:12 PM

Though when I was a student I photocopied books instead of buying them, I knew it wasn't right to do it. But since it was doing this or failing the exam...

I think about P2P there are 3 points that trouble me:
1. freedom is first granted then removed when it is abused by too many. I would hate for people that use P2P in a pure legal manner to be deprived from it because some are abusing it.
2. once a song is played on the radio it is public, so one could record it at replay the recording at will.
3. Who uses P2P the most? kids. Who spends the most money on music? kids. Who has the least amount of money? kids.

# posted by yanstor 11:41 PM

Any person who wants to call them hackers should be harmed. They are pirates. Plain and simple. Gah! It annoys me to no end to watch people (some who have been told the difference still don't make the distinction) continually abuse that title.

Now that my mini-rant is over, I personally feel that if you can support the authors of software, music, or movies, you should. There is no excuse to not support the efforts that you are enjoying. HOWEVER. People who are unable to support these various authors should not be penalized and made to live on the virtual streets because they are unable to pay (usually) over-inflated prices for software that is usually bloated and wouldn't have been published when quality in software coding still mattered. Or pay outrageous prices for music or movies because the respective industries want to maintain a certain profit margin because they have no real competition.

I see a very disturbing thing in a society that is more concerned about the profit of a few than the quality of life for the majority. We have profiteering oil companies, record labels, movies labels, software companies, healthcare providers, and we have a staggering amount of people who can not afford to do a lot of things that some of us consider basic standards of living.

Until we (as a society) start providing assistance for the 'have-not's and help them to a position that they are able to 'have', we should not expect them forego attempts to get what they need/want to survive.

While some of us may consider software, music, movies, or other things non-essential to living, there are others who do not. I support and purchase music and am happy I am able to do this, but I won't look down on the poor child who has a old pentium/windows 95 computer on the net listening to the latest music and at least escaping the realities of thier life for those fleeting moments.

-Pere

# posted by Anonymous 12:37 AM

Pere, your comment is illustrative of the problem. What you're saying is that if I can't afford an SUV I want, it's okay for me to go take it.

In truth, the two ethical and legal choices I would actually have are: find a way to work harder and earn more money so I can afford, it or else do without it.

If you want to show what you believe to be your rightous indignation about the level of profit involved in the price, it's expressed by not purchasing that product --not by stealing it. If the product isn't selling, either it will be withdrawn from the market or the price will start to float to find an acceptance point. That's basic economics.

You can't justify theft with some exotic idea of entitlement. Leg irons and lengthy prison terms would probably help reform the misconception. Morally unambiguous parents would probably affect it before the fact.

# posted by Bill 2:58 AM

I don't have any sympathy for the victims of these crimes.
IF it is stealing, it is stealing the possible profits that these companies beleive they have coming, not any actual property.
Yes, violating copyright laws is wrong.
So is buying congressmen to write laws they don't even understand merely to prop up failing business models.
Hopefully these terrible laws and the rampant piracy will both fade out once we've transitioned to the next business model (subsonic google ads maybe?)
Until then I expect it to continue as pirates vs. the state.
I support the pirates, if for no better reason than they are motivating the change to the next stable business model, all the other players are pushing us backwards to the failng models. (i.e. buying 11 songs that suck to get 2 good ones or paying to see a movie that sucks or buying a game that sucks and not being able to return it)
That said, I also support paying for things that don't suck. I like the idea of tipping for media. If it doesn't suck, they should get paid.

# posted by Tom 5:55 AM

Since I'm a new lurker, first time poster, who actually discovered the site via slashdot, I thought I'd share my own perspective on this... 'cuz I think both sides have valid things to say (actually I think there are more than 2 sides to this issue). Copyright is a sticky problem, and too many times it is overly simplified. Intellectual property just doesn't work the same as physical property. Downloading an .mp3 of a song isn't quite the same as stealing a CD, at least in the sense of if I were to steal a physical CD from a store that's one less they have to sell, whereas downloading an .mp3 means I have a copy same as the original. Is it one less sale? It might be... but not always.

I know that I, as a customer of the music industry, have been pissed off for years at the ridiculous prices of music CDs. Even the federal government found them guilty of price-fixing and overcharging. Those are the people who complain about piracy and "hurting the artists," when any number of artists over the years have come forward to talk about how much the industry itself "rapes" the artists. I personally am willing to pay for my music, but it needs to be *way* more reasonable than it currently is. And I really want more of the $$ to go to the actual artist.

The other thing to understand about copyright that is often missed is that it was only ever intended as a LIMITED monopoly to ensure that artists/creators/whatever would *share* their work with society, for the good of society as a whole. The trade-off of that limited monopoly was seen as a benefit to all. If you really wanted to keep absolute control of your work, you kept it to yourself. Today, copyright is seen as a way for mostly huge corporations to charge whatever they want for access to what really should be society's culture. If you were to write a book, I personally have no issue with you making a decent profit and I'd want to support that... but I think society as a whole has a huge problem by guaranteeing in perpetuity your offspring an income based on something they had nothing to do with. And after a certain timeframe, the framers even intended your own rights to expire so that that work could become the raw material for future works.

The bigger problem to me though is when you replace the actual author in the example above with a huge corporation that exists solely to maximize profits. The reality is that these companies are locking up culture, and eventually, it will be pay as you go, for access. Remember DIVX? That's their wet dream, and copyright law is going to usher that in. I think a more balanced view of copyright is needed, and to think of music sharing as strictly piracy isn't fair or accurate.

Sure, I downloaded the original spider-man movie before it came out, when it was still in theatres. I also saw it 3 times in the theatre and bought the original DVD release. My only point in sharing that example is that downloading and sharing doesn't necessarily mean a lost sale... the issue is more complicated than that.

As much as I like a lot of what Alice and Bill both write here, I personally have issues with the idea that sharers and downloaders are just thieves and should all be hung out to dry. I have the same issue with the people who say that we should fight the power and not pay for anything.

Something to think about...

--mj
arkiver@mailblocks.com

# posted by Anonymous 6:15 AM

MJ, you've just admitted to a crime. Don't ever do that in public.

As for your argument, dan't agree with you less. There are only two sides -right and wrong. Wrong isn't attemptig to get the most money possible for your product. That's right, that's the way it's supposed to work. Wrong is stealing the product because, in your opinion, the seller wants too much for it.

The only way you get a voice in the argument is by not buying the product you have your doubts about. Rationalizing theft is wrong.

# posted by Bill 8:59 AM

Agreed on all counts, Bill.

The term "hacker" has been bastardized by the media. Anyone who now carries the moniker (or admits to it, anyhow) is looked down upon by society. That's shameful. I aspire to be a hacker myself, because I know what it really means.

As for the issue of Piracy ... It doesn't matter what you call it - theft is just wrong.

Still, Robin Hood is widely regarded as the hero for his crimes.

# posted by Terry 10:16 AM

I think that there is never just two sides to anything Bill. In the strictly right and wrong category, then you are 100% correct that piracy is wrong. However MJ makes the point I was going for a lot better than I did. It's not a case of simple physical ownership. And that leads into a grey area that while it is very wrong to steal and deprive others via that theft, there is a other side to it.

Take the person who is unable to afford to purchase a song. That person would purchase that song if they were able to, but thier circumstances prevent it. They download and listen to that song. They are not changing the end income equation because they would not have been able to contribute. What do you say to that person?

Back in the day when I bought my first computer for the low base price of $1500 (Apple ][c+. Obsolete from the beginning and shifted me to the world of PCs.) I made a substantial investment for an 18yo. Now days, you can pretty much get a computer for nothing and internet service for $10. There is no substantial investment to be made and it's opened the internet to a vastly wider audience. Not everyone out there has a huge income and some people I've 'met' on the internet have barely met month to month bills.

Now Bill, you state that the purchasing dollar should let the market correct itself. The fault is in those people who don't have that purchasing dollar. Being unable to purchase means that they are not part of that market equation but they are part of the community. Basically a citizen without the right to vote.

I count myself fortunate to be able to purchase what I want, but remember that there are not those who are as fortunate and you or I.

# posted by Anonymous 10:23 AM

It is interesting and revealing reading these comments to note the difficulty that some of the posters have with the idea of moral relativism.
The World (has to) equal = black + white. Hey (hay) there ?? folks, Whut's the haps?

# posted by Anonymous 10:35 AM

And, then again, some folks don't have any trouble with it (relativism) at all. They just l u r ve it. (and twist themselves into all kinds of pretzels justifying it being ok)-- sooo, whatdja thimk?

# posted by Anonymous 10:42 AM

Moral relativism is an oxymoron.

# posted by Bill 11:05 AM

Of course copyright infringement is wrong.
Being wrong, however, won't stop anyone but a few from doing it.
Nor will trying to cripple any of the common tools.
Like rioting, revolution, and retribution, widespread copyright infringement is an effect created by an exisitng cause that must be dealt with if one cares to stifle the effect.

# posted by Tom 11:37 AM

Guess I'm really confused. It's perfectly legal for me to tape a song off my FM radio to listen to it later. However, it's not legal to download the same song from the internet and listen to it later.

Further, it's legal for me to tape a TV program (or movie from HBO)on my VCR to watch at a later time. However, it's not legal to download the same movie from the internet and watch it later. Throw in time-shifting with somethink like TiVo, and I get even more confused as to what is legal and not.

Our laws do not make much sense.

# posted by Anonymous 12:17 PM

This is one of my favorite discussion topics because it's so obvious what is right and wrong and yet people continue to debate the issue. Obtaining someone's intellectual property, be it a song, a movie, a software package, or whatever, without their permission is wrong. Period. Downloaders make a number of arguments against this, but they are all flawed. Let's look at a few:

* "CD's cost too much." This is closely allied to "You get 10 crappy songs for 2 good ones." As far as costing too much, just don't buy it. A nice Mercedes costs too much as well, but I doubt people making this argument will steal one. I realize there's some pain involved in not getting the music you like, but consumer pressure is the only way to change the market. As far as the crappy/good song argument, that's obviously subjective.

* "I can tape it off the radio" Yes, you can tape music off the radio and you can tape movies off TV. In both cases the artist has been compensated for their work. So go to town.

* "Poor people who can't afford the music should get it anyway". I hadn't really heard this argument until reading this discussion. This assumes that everyone has some inalienable right to music, which I find difficult to swallow.

* "The artists are so rich they don't need my money." This is my favorite because it is so absurd. Who defines "rich"? You? Rich is a relative term, and generally just means anyone with more money than me. Putting morality on a sliding scale like this doesn't work.

Before long the record companies and movie studios will figure out that there's a huge opportunity here and they will take advantage of it. Buying media like CDs or DVDs will be a thing of the past; we'll all just get what we want off the net. The iTunes Music Store is a step in this direction.

# posted by jallison 12:33 PM

There's a terrible misunderstanding in copyright that goes with the metaphor (often used and abused) of physical property. Intellectual property is not physical property and doesn't quite follow the same rules. Also, illegal does not necessarily mean immoral, any more than legal = moral (after all, slavery was at one time legal, regardless of whether or not .mp3 "piracy" is comparable or not the point is that standards change).

I don't think anyone anywhere has an issue really, unless they've overly zealous, with artists and creators getting compensated. I'm all for that, and copyright has, traditionally, been our best mechanism for enforcing that. However, it's not as simple as creator A getting the $$ for his creation under our current copyright laws. Our laws say the copyright owner gets that $$, regardless of the work involved or not. Again, read the Constitution on what copyright really is... it is (paraphrasing a bit here, so feel free to correct) the power of the government to grant limited monopolies to creative works in order to promote the social good of the 'useful' arts. So, in return for creator A sharing his book, he gets a limited term where no one can take that without his permission. However, and here's what often gets lost in the debate... every creative work relies to some degree on what went before. The novel as a form rose out of short stories, out of tales around the campfire. The writing itself is using language, which is "created" by society as much as anything. And so on...

If you created something totally in a vacuum, with no other influences or anything, then you'd have a pretty strong argument that you and you alone should decide it's fate. But that doesn't seem, at least to me, to be very realistic. Now, add in the fact, at least in our modern age, that copyright is not owned by that creator but instead by a company. Companies don't die, and their sole function is to generate profit, regardless of that social good that the founders intended by empowering copyright.

Does that still fulfill that role, of empowering the social good? Again, the intent was always that it would, at some point, expire. You got your $$ and your chance to exploit the idea/work/painting/etc. Now, it's free game.

Copyright isn't just simple economics and access, it is also about culture, and society. Would Shakespeare be as well-known if only he and his designated heirs had the sole and forever copyright? What about all those free plays that folks over the years have put on? At a certain point, copyrights should expire.

Now, when it comes to .mp3, again, the music industry and some of their more zealot supporters would say that *every* download = lost sale. Is that true? Back when Napster hit, sure I did a lot of downloading, and a lot of buying. I bought more music then, then I've bought since (actually I stopped being interested in music after Napster, 'cuz it is overpriced and underquality). A lot of that music was stuff that I "tried" on Napster and liked enough to buy.

All I'm saying is that it's not that simple or black and white. Bill, I respect your opinion on it, but honestly I still differ with it... I'll take moral relativism and seeing all sides of the situation any day over insisting that anyone that doesn't agree with me is wrong wrong wrong. Moral relativism does have it's weaknesses, sure, but overall, at least to me, it presents a much clearer picture.

--mj
arkiver@mailblocks.com

# posted by Anonymous 12:58 PM

A few points:

After I steal it ... it's still there. I didn't steal anything I just copied it.

Probably 99% of the stuff copied would never have been bought. So no real loss occurs.

Society exists to stop me from killing you and talking what I want. Lets all try to be a bit more social.

PenGun
Do What Now ??? ... Standards and Practices !

# posted by Anonymous 4:17 PM

PenGun, that's a great rationalization for allowing counterfeit money or, better still, grabbing that left-over Corvette from the dealeship because they're not going to sell it. BTW: Society doesn't exist to keep you from killing me, Smith & Wesson has that function. Society is just there to punish you in case you succeed.

# posted by Bill 5:03 PM

So, MJ, you should go steal a pair of Levis to see if you like them enough to buy them? The car was built on the concepy of the coach, was built on the concept of the wagon, was built on the concept of a sled, etc. There are boat load of "intellectual property" lawsuits going on in China right now over car design. A child is built on the concept of its parents. And on, and on. The whole idea of moral relativism is only espoused by those who can't (or refuse to) see the intrinsics of an issue. You can have degrees of right and degrees of wrong, but never to the extent that one becomes the other. If something doesn't belong to you and you take it, you're stealing. Period. That's something your parents should have made clear to you at an early age. If they didn't, then they raised you wrong. If they did and you've decided to ignore their advice, you've made a huge mistake.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution has been amplified quite a bit (cf., U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 - 810, for example) under the authority granted to Congress to do so. You should read everything.

Moral relativism doesn't exist except in the minds of those who need it to justify their actions. Sorry.

# posted by Bill 5:30 PM

I have to agree with Bill here. Moral Relativism is an absolutely idiotic mindset. If we start down that path, where are we going to end up? For someone that copies music, I believe it actually increases the probability that in the future they will continue to steal. I saw it in my classmates. At 14 they started downloading (stealing) music, and 16 they started shoplifting. For them, they had the attitude now that "what does this 3 buck item really matter?", and it worries me that we are allowing a generation to grow up as thieves. I am a young 18, and I have to live with the consequences of these, and other´s pirating actions for years to comee. Regardless of whether or not they turn out to be thieves and villains, I still end up paying for it at the cash register with the increased software and music prices (see Doom 3, HL 2, and HALO 2 for examples of software), and I don´t appreciate any of you making me pay more. I don´t have enough money as it is.

# posted by Cyrus 6:15 PM

To those who promote the argument "I just copied it, it's still there"...

Say you paid a consultant $200 to write your resume. We worked at the same firm, so I just I copied it and used it. Thanks - everyone who copies it after that thanks you too; you've paid for everyone. Same thing with stealing the music for free - those of us who pay end up paying your freight.

# posted by Tim 7:34 PM

I believe that humans are generally amoral where capitalism and the competition for resources are concerned. I can sympathize with each opposing argument, but I generally lean in favor of pirates. Their impact on product prices is much less than the industry would lead you to believe.

On one hand, the pirating of software can be considereed theft. On the other hand, it isn't theft of material goods or man hours. Instead, it is more a theft of potential revenue. Often one assumes that the people who pirate would purchase the digital resource if pirating weren't an option. I disagree. I believe we're all being presumptious when we assume that software prices would decrease if those who pirated the software were to instead purchase it. This logic might hold true for another business such as a hospital, where if someone doesn't pay their medical bill, fees paid by patients in good standing must increase so that the expense of serving the patient who didn't pay a dime can be recouped. With digital pirating, by contrast, man hours or materials aren't lost to the pirate. So I don't believe it should be considered theft unless the pirate is redistributing the material for commercial benefit.

The argument that pirates help to inflate software prices doesn't hold up under scrutiny. As an e-business entrepreneur and software developer, I can tell you that in my experience, prices are set based on the your customer demographic and your customer's perceived value of the software. In other words, Quickbooks Professional may cost you $499 and Windows XP may cost you $199; It isn't because Windows XP sells more units, but rather the perceived value that the customer believes they are yielding from the purchase. And in many cases prices increase as sales volume increases. Take Quickbooks for example; years ago it was relatively cheap. As they began to dominate the market, their prices increased with their sales volume. Now, Quickbooks for many people is $499 and roundabout $179/year for tax table updates.

I believe that the pirating of music is quite similar to software in it's amorality. It's not the theft of resources or man hours. So it should not be considered theft unless the pirate redistributes the material for personal gain.

Sean.

# posted by Sean 4:12 AM

Sean-

I have long argued the perceived value over and inherent value (ever since I got my Corvette which cost about $10,000 over inherent value.) But that doesn't change the facts.

If I steal a lithograph of a painting, is that okay because it's not the painting itself? At the risk of running afoul of Descartes, I think not. You're rationaling.

I can only repeat, if there is a segment, large or small, of the population that maintains a morally ambiguous attitude toward theft then it's because they weren't dragged up from childhood correctly. The sweat off my back is a byproduct of my labors. Even so, if you want it, you have to pay for it. What's mine is mine, whether I'm an individual or a mega corporation. As I said earlier, the only way around that is to rationalize the situtaion to make yourself feel better.

# posted by Bill 5:26 AM

"I can only repeat, if there is a segment, large or small, of the population that maintains a morally ambiguous attitude toward theft then it's because they weren't dragged up from childhood correctly. The sweat off my back is a byproduct of my labors. Even so, if you want it, you have to pay for it. What's mine is mine, whether I'm an individual or a mega corporation. As I said earlier, the only way around that is to rationalize the situtaion to make yourself feel better."

Bill, by that logic, the folks who freed the slaves were stealing the slave-owners property. And the folks who threw the Boston tea party, they were stealing that tea from the rightful owners. If you're really as into the moral absolute that you're claiming, then that was theft and wrong. In copyright, there's the whole concept of fair use, which is currently under assault, but which says that by publishing/distributing/etc., you are giving up some of your rights to society/the community/etc. If you really want to keep absolute control of your work, keep it to yourself. Copyright is a trade-off, a balance between what most of the public wants (ie. free access to everything) and what the creator wants ($$ for every time someone even glances in that direction).

All I was trying to say originally was that the argument isn't as simple as you painted it. I don't entirely agree with the slashdot crowd either, that they're fighting the power/the man/whatever by "stealing". I have no issues with paying for stuff generally, but I do have issues with the amount of power that's been granted to copyright holders, at the expense of rights that the individual purchaser/consumer/whatever has traditionally had. Take the doctrine of first sale, where you have the right to resell what you already paid for (if you're not keeping it). So, say you buy the latest Britney Spears album and don't like it... you can turn around and sell that to someone who wants it. The music industry hates that, they see that as a lost sale. Now, in the digital space, you cannot do that. Because they decided you can't. That's what I see as most unbalanced and where, right or wrong or whatever, the "ethical stealing" comes in as a balance. You could call it a "civil disobedient" way of having the conversation about what rights and balances are needed.

My main point was really just that there is some grain of truth/element that needs to be looked at and considered. And the problem with megacorps is that they have so much more power to influence the law and government than the individual. The law is tilted now in their favor, with the changes since 1970... you can almost track when the copyright will be extended by how close Mickey Mouse is for coming due. Lawrence Lessig writes much more eloquently than I on some of those issues, and has even come up with a good alternative in Creative Commons.

--mj
arkiver@mailblocks.com

# posted by Anonymous 6:42 AM

Interesting discussion.

I am particularly amused by the individuals who seem to equate morality with legality. As someone already pointed out, slavery was once legal. Does this mean that it was once moral? Some of the founders of the US were involved in the American Revolution - does this mean they were immoral individuals, until the government of Great Britain recognized the US government? By the same token, was Ghandi an immoral man? Of course not.

On the other hand, I am also amused by those who insist that there is a consistent, absolute moral law that is (or at least should be) obvious to all. Not too suprisingly, this 'absolute moral law' always seems to coincide with their own societal and situational mores.

Finally, Bill - don't be an ass. The sole purpose of society is NOT to ensure that I am punished if I succeed in killing you. Moral relativism may not be your cup of tea, but simplistic, reductionist arguments really only hurt your case.

# posted by Anonymous 7:18 AM

"Bill, by that logic, the folks who freed the slaves were stealing the slave-owners property. And the folks who threw the Boston tea party, they were stealing that tea from the rightful owners."

I don't think this has a thing to do with a moral discussion. You're equating slavery with the music industry. The music industry is more like indentured servitude. The Boston tea party was a group of punks who decided to protest by destroying property. It was one of the protests which inspired people to revolt and eventually detach us from Britain, so they couldn't exploit the colonies.
You aren't being exploited when you don't have the money to buy copyrighted material. You're stealing when you take content without paying the producer of that content.
That's capitalism. Its what the Boston tea party was for. Destruction of copyright renders intellectual property valueless and will eventually lead to the dilution of the quality of content. A musician is not just a hobbyist, they are a producer that expects to be paid for their service.
If you don't think its a service, then don't listen to music.

# posted by metermax 7:45 AM

I guess I was born to be an ass. I was a month premature and when my Sicilian mother was done counting the body parts and noted I was male, her comment was, "Oh, he's a boy. What a shame. He'll have to work hard all his life." Love them Sicilian curses... But better to be a long-eared, stubborn, beast of burden than what you'd find under the tail-end of that beast.

Slavery was morally acceptable for thousands of years in hundreds of countries. Let's not leave it at the US' doorstep. To our credit, despite the overwhelming world opinion to the contrary, the US unilaterally came to believe that it was morally unacceptable and moved to make it illegal as a result. You see the coincidence of action?

Sure, there were those who, at the time, were indignant and wanted to know what the heck did those folk think they were doing --just as there are folk today who try to make an argument for similar moral relativism. It didn't work then, it doesn't work now.

BTW: If society's job wasn't to punish "evil doers" why do you think we'd have all these jails? Police -respond to- incidents, then society (a.k.a., the law) judges the severity of the situation and assigns punishment when and where required. Anyone who thinks that getting an "Order of Protection" against another individual will protect them from that individual often ends up hurt or dead.

("Hello, 911? I have an order of protection against my ex. He's supposed to stay 150 feet away from me. Well, that darn thing didn't work. He totally ignored it, walked up to me, and shot me in the head! How rude! Can you send the police to arrest him --oh, and by the way, I could probably use an ambulance.")

You keep yourself safe. Society is only the bandage afterward that will mourn and commiserate with/for you. That applies in global situations as well.

# posted by Bill 8:34 AM

I don't see the theft of a lithograph and the digital pirating of music or software as being directly comparable. Firstly, as per my original argument, the theft of a lithograph falls under theft of materials and man hours, which I believe is morally wrong. See, the publisher paid to have the lithograph printed, and a distributor paid the publisher for the lithograph, and the retailer paid the distributor for the lithograph. By stealing the lithograph, you've stolen not only the retailer's potential revenue (the amount beyond his wholesale cost), you've stolen the money the retailer paid for the lithograph.

On the other hand, if John downloads a song and listens to it without paying, he has stolen only the publisher's potential income, presuming John was going to buy the CD in the first place.

I'm not arguing that pirating digital music or software should be transitioned to the sphere of socially acceptable behavior. If pirating were to become universal, then yes, it would impede commerce, since it's hard to generate revenue by giving away a digital product. However, the act of pirating software, at least in the West, has done little to impede the growth of the industry as a whole. If the software industry has flourished despite millions of software pirates, then the music industry will also do the same.

I find it humorous that the music industry is spending so very much money on an advertising campaign that attempts to communicate to upstanding citizens that the act of pirating music is a morally repugnant act deserving of a civil lawsuit and, when circumstances permit, jail time. I mean, does this same consumer audience also need an advertising campaign that communicates to them how horrid the act of mugging old ladies is? Of course not. The reason I believe is that the marginal pirating digital works for personal use simply does not damage the commercial health of private or public institutions.

I'm specifically choosing to avoid the Slashdot theme with my arguments. I'm not an anarchist, nor am I a rigid copyright proponent that believes consumers who pirate digital works for personal use are deserving of legal or punitive action.

It should go with saying that my argument is tainted by personal experience and/or moral relativism. Everyone's argument is! However, it is the moral majority that tend to have the most influence and the digital pirating of music or software material does not, at present, interest the moral majority. Municipalities are more concerned with issues such as violent crime, as well they should be.

Sean.

# posted by Sean 8:51 AM

Bill says, "Slavery was morally acceptable for thousands of years in hundreds of countries. Let's not leave it at the US' doorstep. To our credit, despite the overwhelming world opinion to the contrary, the US unilaterally came to believe that it was morally unacceptable and moved to make it illegal as a result."

Wandering _way_ off topic here, but this is far from the truth. The powers in the 19th century were the British and French Empires. The slave trade was abolished in the British Empire in 1807, and slavery itself in 1833. The French made slavery illegal in their empire in 1847. So the US was hardly paving the way by ratifying the 13th amendment in 1865.

This doesn't change the fact that legality and morality are not one and the same, which other posters have pointed out. Theft happens to be, in most cases, both immoral and illegal. There may be arguable cases for moral theft, but stealing music isn't one of them. When you take something for free, you devalue it, hence you hurt the owner. That's immoral and illegal.

# posted by jallison 11:00 AM

Bill blathered:
"You keep yourself safe. Society is only the bandage afterward that will mourn and commiserate with/for you. That applies in global situations as well.

Read a little history Bill, you don't have to be as ignorent as your politicians.

PenGun
Do What Now ??? ... Standards and Practices !

# posted by Anonymous 11:05 AM

The liberties people are taking with distribution are a function of the flaws in the legal distribution model.

As others have noted, artists are not being hurt so much as the distribution entities who have many artists under exploitative contract. This is supported by the fact that most artists (who have the choice) permit recordings to be made of their live performances.

None of the individuals making a moral argument has addressed the case of the downloader who previews content for free and ends up obtaining the media through legitimate channels. They would not have completed this sale had they not obtained a preview copy.

How do we fix the distribution model? Would errors in the preview copy keep the system "morally sanitized?" Is it flawless copying that should be illegal?

# posted by Anonymous 11:20 AM

Sean, the musician still has the instrument, the painter still has the paint. You're making an artificial distinction to justify the deed.

Would the same justification apply to stealing cable? After all, the signal's still there when you're done, you're just tapping into it.

(BTW: Did you notice that someone named Shirley was the next poster after you noted the help Shirley gave you? Coincidence? Maybe, or perhaps she's been stalking you...)

# posted by Bill 11:29 AM

Twofer: Cyrus - if you sent me anything between about 3:00pm and teh rest of the day yesterday EST, it's probably floating in the Tennakill at this point.

Terry: According to the written account of the story, Robin Hood only robbed from the government. He left the rich alone because he knew it was the rich who provided the jobs and services for the Serfs and Oafs of that day. ;-)

# posted by Bill 11:33 AM

"I don't see the theft of a lithograph and the digital pirating of music or software as being directly comparable. Firstly, as per my original argument, the theft of a lithograph falls under theft of materials and man hours, which I believe is morally wrong. See, the publisher paid to have the lithograph printed, and a distributor paid the publisher for the lithograph, and the retailer paid the distributor for the lithograph. By stealing the lithograph, you've stolen not only the retailer's potential revenue (the amount beyond his wholesale cost), you've stolen the money the retailer paid for the lithograph."

Music recording and distribution requires the same things. It does require man hours to play, mixdown, and master a recording. It costs money and other people to press it, package it, and distribute it. If you want to buy the recording online instead, if it is so distributed, you still are paying for the services of the musician and producer of the mixed down and mastered recording. I would agree that this form of distribution should lead to lower prices than the cd format. If it doesn't in short order, I would be upset. This still doesn't justify theft. Why you see a lithograph as having more value than the music makes no sense. If you like the music, it has value. If you like the lithograph, it has value. If you want it, someone needs to get paid, because that's why it exists.

# posted by metermax 9:30 PM

Post a Comment