Are copyright violations ever ethical? 17

[KornGeek]

This applies to music, software, etc. This seems like the answer would obviously be "no", but considering how common copyright violations have become, it would seem that some people feel copyright violations are ethical at least part of the time.

I would like to avoid discussions about the legality of this and also about the definition of "ethics" if possible. I'm trying to determine how we decide when it is OK to ignore somebody's copyright (because almost all of us have at some point or another). Or, if it is never ethical, the when is it OK to ignore our ethics?

I'll withhold my opinions for now, because I'm still trying to decide these answers for myself.

 

[cdogg]

Many will argue that making a backup copy of music, software, etc., is a legitimate cause. Others might justify making a copy to work in another medium (i.e. ripping a purchased DVD to AVI, so you can play it in a laptop without a DVD-ROM).

Whatever your bag of reasons might include, the ultimate question is whether the laws in your country permit such a violation under particular cirumstances. I know you wish to keep the legality out of this, so I won't go any further. Personally, I see nothing wrong with having a backup copy as long as it's not in use at the same time as the primary copy. Any other reason to make a copy questions the motive and possibly crosses the line between ethical/unethical.

You might be able to separate legal and ethical in this discussion, but in the end, one needs to be more concerned with the consequences as opposed to what's right and wrong. Unfortunately, the law doesn't always reflect a moral code of ethics.




~cdogg

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
- A. Einstein

 

[KornGeek]

I'm mostly thinking about unlicensed copies of software, and pirated/cracked music, movies, and software. Most of us have engaged in one or more of these at some time or another.

I'm not too concerned over the legality, because the individual users aren't the ones the law targets. They go after the distributers, so we aren't likely to see legal repercussions. Instead, we end up with an ethical issue of "is this right?"

 

[CajunCenturion]

I would tend to think copyright violations are unethical. With respect to making a backup, the question is not whether its ethical or not, but rather is that a copyright violation. May EULA's permit the copying of media for the purposes of making a backup, in which case, no copyright violation has taken place.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[sleipnir214]

You can "bend" if not "break" copyright law by making fair use of a copyrighted work. For example, if I rip a CD to load its songs into my MP3 player, I am making a fair use of a copyrighted work. It's only when I start sharing the data via a P2P network that I run afoul of the law.

And if you own a license to a piece of software developed by a company that has gone out of business, and if no other piece of software can do for you what that one does, and if you make a good faith attempt to contact the owners of the copyright without success, then it would not be unethical to copy the software onto additional machines.

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!

 

[skiflyer]

I think copyright violations can be ethical and illegal in one specific case...

I buy a CD, I later lose it because I'm a dolt, or I scratch it beyond playability. I have no ethical issue with copying a friends disk at this point, though technically speaking I'm not acting within the terms of the law.

Unfortunately for me, few of my friends have the same discs.

-Rob

 

[cdogg]

KornGeek,
When is it ethical to download or use software that you did not pay for?

Unless it is freeware or shareware with a trial period, it's not ethical in my opinion. You're using a service which requires payment, but you have decided that you do not wish to pay. Therefore, you are acting unethically.

Now, suppose you download something that does not have a free trial period, but you want to test it out before you buy. Although the action of obtaining it is not ethical, one might argue that if you end up purchasing the product, then there's no harm done. Or later if you decide you don't like it, you remove it from your hard drive. Those would be exceptions that might make the overall process ethical. However, it all depends on the end action of whether you buy or get rid of it within a reasonable amount of time.




~cdogg

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
- A. Einstein

 

[CajunCenturion]

skiflyer - I buy a CD, I later lose it because I'm a dolt, or I scratch it beyond playability. I have no ethical issue with copying a friends disk at this point, though technically speaking I'm not acting within the terms of the law. So you're saying that its ethical to replace what you lost even thought the method of replacement may be illegal?

Does this mean that if you buy a blender for example, and because of some abuse you break it, that you're ethically entitled to replace it by taking one off the store shelf with impunity?

Perhaps someone can explain to me the difference between taking something off the shelf in a public market, and taking something off the web from a public site?

Why do we consider one stealing and the other not? Because we're making a copy is one case and not in the other? In either case, are you not taking something that you do not have the legal right to take?

In the specific CD case, you may for backup purposes have the legal right to make a copy of your own CD, but that does not give you the right to make a copy of someone else's CD. I know of no copyright exemption that provides for free replacement.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[skiflyer]

Cajun

How to elaborate the differences...

So, if I were to have made a copy of that CD ahead of time, I would've been within the law. Now, I've made a copy of the CD at a later date and it's illegal.

So, store sells 2 copies, I have 1 copy, 1 lost, friend has 1 copy. One way was illegal one was completely legal.

With the blender example, it is not possible to start and end in the same state. If I have 1 copy, 1 lost, friend hs 1, then the store sold 2 copies and one is missing from inventory.

Your second point, I agree with... why is it theft if it's a copy, we had no right to take it. However, once purchased, fair use would suggest we do have the right to take it. i.e. If I sell a copy of my software for 2,000$ and the customer suffers a fire. Would I require them to pay 2,000$ to replace it, because they lost their backups? No, I would say, you paid for the program, you lost the CD's... if I'm bad at customer relations I'd charge 2 bucks for the hardware replacement and postage and handling.

Blenders and Music are inherently different in that one is a physical object which has direct costs which go into EACH unit. CD's do as well. Music however, has production costs. This is why some people (not myself) feel it's ok to steal the music, "I wasn't going to buy it anyway so they don't lose", and why some people (myself included) feel that once we've paid for the music, we're free to do what we want with it within the rights of fair use. If I'm a dolt and lose it without backing it up, I think it's reasonable to replace it at no cost to the record store/artist/riaa/whatever entity. At the moment I cost them a penny to replace it, I'm thieving. At the moment I take it without ever paying the agreed price I'm thieving.

And as you said, no copyright exemption lets me out legally speaking, but my assertion was that I find no ethically problem there. I consider it a problem with the laws. Heck, look at how apple is handling this in a more likely to happen situation, you download a song, your computer goes kaput, you can just redownload it for free.

-Rob

 

[CajunCenturion]

It's not when you make the backup copy that counts, it's whether or not the backup copy is made from your original. Not someone else's copy or original. What's legal is to make backup copies of your original.

You software analogy has one major difference. In your example, you, as the vendor, are making the decision to give the software away, which is well within your rights. That is altogether different from the CD case, where it is the customer making the decision to take it, which is not within their rights.

Your point about unit cost is a valid one, and if we're going to use unit cost as the ethical basis of replacement, then when we go to store to buy our replacement blender, why do pay full price? Why not the unit production cost?

I guess the real issue is when you buy a CD, what exactly are you purchasing? As you stated, "once purchased, fair use would suggest we do have the right to take it.". And to which I respond - take exactly what? Again back to the question, just what did you purchase that gives you the ethical right for free replacement?

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[skiflyer]

Second question first...

Content.

First question second...

Two things, sometimes you do pay a discounted cost (sometimes as in very reputable stores, or places that focus heavily on customer service), but more importantly calculating unit production cost is really irrevellant. You're not talking about something so simple with a physical object. It's been built with parts, shipped to the store, inventoried, rang up by the sales person etc.... if however, you bought the blender, took it apart, detailed yourself some schematics, broke it... then went out and bought all the parts for yourself, and made it again from the schematics you ascertained... and don't profit in any way, no one's going to complain.

So yes, I feel I have purchased the content and therefore don't have an ethical issue replacing it, however, I would have a severe ethical issue saying I bought the CD, hence I can go to best buy and take another physical copy of the music.

-Rob

 

[cdogg]

Sorry to but in...

I can understand the discussion about backup copies relating to KornGeek's original question. However, I think when you start talking about HOW and WHEN you obtained backup copies, you're getting into the NITTY GRITTY and going a bit beyond the point. Making backup copies of software is generally considered ethical, but not always legal - just depends on the vendor's license. It's a grey area that can be debated all day.

KornGeek,
Since one act can easily be interpreted differently from another, perhaps we should be more specific. There are 4 general categories:

1) Making a copy of something you own/purchased
2) Making a backup copy of something you own/purchased - not in use while the primary still exists.
3) Making a copy of something you don't own
4) Making a copy of something you don't own and distributing it

Which do we want to focus on first?




~cdogg

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
- A. Einstein

 

[KornGeek]

This debate has already gotten interesting.

I think we can all agree that 4 is unethical.

I think most would agree that (to a limited extent at least) 1 & 2 are ethical.

That leaves 3 as the most interesting case in my opinion. As I have stated, most of us have at some point or another done this, and yet we like to think we are ethical people.

I'm trying to reconcile the concept that making a copy of something you don't own is an unethical act that is often done by ethical people. Napster was a great success in its time. Many of us used it. Are we all unethical? Many of us have used unlicensed software at home or in the office (there's an interesting thread about that in this forum also) at some point. Are we unethical because of this?

I'm still somewhat unclear on my own personal opinion on this.

 

[cdogg]

Indeed, 3 might be the most interesting.
With 3 comes several subcategories:

3a) Making a copy of a product that you later purchase - testing phase - liked
3b) Making a copy of a product that you later get rid of - testing phase - disliked
3c) Making a copy of a product that you keep without purchasing


3a and 3b are debateable, but personally I see nothing wrong with either. Your intentions are honest as long as we're talking about a relatively short period of time (30-60 days)

3c is hardly debateable in my opinion. There's nothing ethically correct about taking something without permission. Using the argument that "you wouldn't have bought it anyway" doesn't fly. Anyone can say one thing but mean another.

[tab]"No Mr.Gates, I wasn't going to actually use Windows XP. I already
[tab] had 2000 and XP just happened to be available through Kazaa."

Sure, 3a and 3b could be subject to the same criticism as 3c. The difference to me is that the offended party receives retribution or loses nothing at all.




~cdogg

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
- A. Einstein

 

[CajunCenturion]

I agree that 1 and 2 are ethical, and that 4 is unethical. But I am also convinced that 3 is un-ethical as well. It's not yours, and unless the owner has permission to allow copying, and has also given you permission to copy it, then to me at least, it pretty cut and dry.

With respect to the "we being unethical" question. Just because I have committed (ok, I've used Morpheus) an un-ethical act (or two) does not not make me an un-ethical person. It means that I've committed an un-ethical act. However, if you knowingly continue to commit un-ethical acts, then perhaps some soul searching is in order.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[cdogg]

Consider a demo station in a store, such as an Xbox or PC, showing off a game or piece of software. Furthermore, even consider a trial version of a piece of shareware that expires after a certain period of time requiring a purchase. In those situations, the vendor knows that you are testing the product before you buy. If you decide not to, there's no harm done since the vendor can rest assured that you can't coninue to use it.

However, that's the ONLY problem with 3a and 3b. The vendor has no guarantee you won't continue to use their software, and there's no set time frame for trying it out. I can see how the vendor might deem this unethical.

On the flipside, would the vendor grant you permission for 3a or 3b knowing that they are not at risk? More than likely. Some may say it is still unethical without permission from the start, but deep down I'm aware of my true intentions. If I keep my word and at the end of that short trial period I make a decision, then I have not performed an unethical act.

I can't speak for others who may or may not use it for the right purpose. The end action determines whether the act is ethical or unethical.

Legal is a whole other issue...


~cdogg

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
- A. Einstein

 

[xutopia]

Microsoft knows about half of all licences of their software is pirated/copied without permission.

They don't seem to mind it too much for now. But if ever they can they'll bust everyone!! MWAAA AHAAA HAAAA

Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

Haran
==========================

 

[CajunCenturion]

I think you're correct to a point, they don't mind since it does put more copies of their products out in the field. However, I think they've reached the point where, now that lots of people are hooked, or at least dependant on Microsoft products, they going to set the hook with Paladium and their Secure Computing Concept, and start hitting people up for license fees.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[manarth]

Most of us have done it at some time.
Downloaded a song / video / software to which we have no right. And kept it. Without paying.
And most of us agree that this act is unethical.

So why do we do it?

My answer: we feel it's the "victimless" crime. Like the "white" lie.
Intellectually, we know it's not, the artist / developer is losing out in some way, but emotionally, we feel it's not hurting anyone.

The following are some interesting reads on "criminal" thinking - how criminals internally resolve their behavious against their code of ethics.

http://home1.gte.net/res0wpck/bookintro.html

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/pgm&svcs/SATP/Session_3.PDF

<marc> i wonder what will happen if i press this...[ul][li]please give feedback on what works / what doesn't[/li][li]need some help? how to get a better answer: faq581-3339[/li][/ul]

 

[edfair]

I have a more pressing concern:
One of my customers uses a terminal emulator &quot;term&quot;. It is the only one that works &quot;out of the box&quot; with 95 and the host systems they have.
The software was abandoned by the original supplier, and the software house that wrote it no longer is in that business.
So, how do you stay legal? I'm going to keep supplying the program to my customer to use for dialup.
You can at least stay legal with microsoft, you can find licenses at various places, but with the smaller companies it is more of a problem.

Ed Fair
Any advice I give is my best judgement based on my interpretation of the facts you supply. Help increase my knowledge by providing some feedback, good or bad, on any advice I have given.