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.

 

[skiflyer]

edfair

I ran into a very similar issue about a month ago... fortunately I was able to find replacement software... such a pain, here was an easily crackable program that I was happy to pay for, but couldn't find the owner to pay... crack or stop using. I went with stop using cause I got lucky finding another source.

victimless crime issue

Don't forget the mp3 swappers #1 defense, "I wouldn't have bought that one anyway"

In the response of the Simpsons

Worst excuse ever

I agree, we probably do view it as the victimless crime, or if you're a /. reader... the RIAA is the only victim and they deserve it! The "everyone else is doing it" argument probably never hurt any of our conciousnesses either, even if we'd never cop out with that in spoken conversation.

That one is cut'n'dry though. Imposing your own trialware on a software is certainlly illegal as well... unethical... I don't think it's so cut'n dry, but in the day and age of GNU and shareware and etc. etc. if the author hasn't included a trial, it's pretty clear she doesn't want you trialing, at which point it is pretty cut'n'dry.

-Rob

 

[lionelhill]

(1) I find this whole thread very dodgy. The gist of it seems to be, if I can convince myself my action is "ethical" then I can break the law with a good conscience. No you can't! If you don't like the law, campaign your government to change it. You can't just decide to disregard laws you don't like. Should we tolerate motorists who decide to break the speed limit because it shouldn't really apply to them, in their car, there, when they were in a hurry..??

(2) Yes, it is very unfortunate when it is no longer possible to obtain a product you need by legal means (edfair's problem). But this is hardly confined to software. One of my friends recently found the photographer who took her graduation pictures has gone broke. But he owns the copyright on the pictures, so she can no longer duplicate her own graduation pics. Sad, but that's life. I don't know what to say about this one.
Incidentally, even edfair's example isn't a victimless crime. If his customer couldn't obtain what they needed, they'd have to do the job some other way, and someone would probably make a profit out of it. But whether it's ethical to make your customers pay twice by letting your products become obsolete outrageously rapidly, that's a whole new question...

 

[skiflyer]

lionelhill

I'm firmly convinced laws themselves can be unethical, and my concious has no trouble violating unethical laws. Look at the history of the US, and tell me we didn't have plenty of laws that we couldn't have all violated with a clear concious. And it's not a matter of disregarding laws one doesn't like. In my example above, it's an issue of two conflicting laws... fair use (which implies you purchase content in certain media) and piracy.

Laws are laws, ethics are ethics... there's a strong argument to be made in "following your leaders and using appropriate channels", but it's not a 100% solid argument... list the hyperboles and it's easy to show why.

-Rob

 

[cdogg]

lionelhill,
The point of this thread is to separate law from ethics. Saying that an action is ethical based on specific criteria may or may not coincide with a piece of legislation. You're exactly right that just because you deem it ethical doesn't give you the right to break any law. Hopefully, no one came across condoning such an action.

When you have a discussion like this, you can break it down and see where the loopholes exist. So maybe if some decide to write their congressman (hint, hint), some points made here could help!



~cdogg

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

 

[lionelhill]

I see your point, about ethics and laws being different, but I still feel that this merely moves the question to "is it ethical to break the law". Remember, this whole thread, until the last 3 posts, hasn't been about "should the law be changed?", it's been about "is it OK for me to copy things to which I don't have the copyright?". i.e. it's been a lot of people trying to justify breaking the law. Which is a dangerous area to go into.

 

[CajunCenturion]

What scares me is that I think some people do feel that their own ethics is justification for breaking the law. I hope that my understanding is wrong, but the general notion that once you've purchased something, you're allowed to replace it at no cost if no physical property changes hands, is one that seems to have been adopted by some. It seems that the key operative phrase is "no physical property changes hands." Please correct me if I'm wrong.

It's okay to download the music on the CD since no physical property is changing hands, but it's not okay to take the CD off the shelf because you taking physical property. I can do this because I've already bought the music.

If you really adopt this concept, then why can't you go into your local music store, with your own blank CD, with proof of purchase receipt, and ask the music store to make the copy for you. No physical property is changing hands, and after all, you already bought the CD from that store. Is this ok? Well, you might have to do it yourself so you don't involve any labor costs, and maybe pay a small fee for the use of their equipment, but do you think the music store is going to let you do it? Never mind, I'll just download it off the net. Where do you draw the line?

I have trouble with that assertion. The notion of the "victimless crime" as manarth brought up, is nothing but a rationalization for committing a crime. It is a manifestation of our own greed, which we can live with because it's not at anyone else's expense. At least no-one that we can identify.

Back in the old days (the good old days? - yeah different thread) when all had were records (you know the 33 1/3 revolving rubber disks), when it got scratched thru misue and/or accident, if you wanted to replace it, you went to the store and bought a new one. And you took better care of it because you didn't want to buy a third one.

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

 

[lgarner]

No, it is not. Those who believe otherwise seem to base their contention on the idea that they have an inalienable right to listen to music, watch movies, use software, etc. They don't. Nor to the providers have a responsibility to provide these things.

Virtually all "intellectual property" has some sort of license agreement or copyright statement whereby the terms under which you can use the product are spelled out. You implicitly agree to these terms by using the product.

There may be times where the agreement is not clear, or is otherwise not to your liking. Your ethical recourse then is to seek a refund from the provider, not to blithely break the law while feeling justified.

 

[Grenage]

I don't download MP3's or cracked software and and firmly against it on moral grounds, with 1 exception:

If I am interested in a piece of software such as Photoshop, Dreamweaver etc which comes at a high price and doesn't offer a trial period (I know these 2 examples do).

In this case I will attain a copy and try it out for a few days to see if it is what I am looking for, rather than pay hundreds of pounds for something which I don't like. I don't see anything wrong ethic wise here as long as it is for a short time and I produce no usable work from the program.

 

[lionelhill]

I never steal cars unless the showroom won't let me take them out for a spin to try them out....
(Oh, I never actually drive them to go anywhere, so it's alright)

 

[Win98User]

Not a good analogy lionelhill ~ unless you truly would buy a car that you weren't allowed to test drive!

Expecting people to splash out on a product that might not be "up to the job" is slightly naive (IMHO).

Look before you leap...

 

[xutopia]

The last CD I bought was one I had downloaded online first. The last movie I downloaded though I saw it twice already in theatres. I pre-ordered the DVD but the order got cancelled (with no word on when it will be available).

Is it ethical? I don't see how it isn't! I had listened to the music on the radio, I knew I wanted to buy it but became impatient. Since I was planning to buy the CD anyway I wasn't hurting any big businesses becoming richer because I did buy the CD anyway!

As for the movie it is Bowling for Columbine by Michael Moore. I've seen it twice in theatres and am waiting for it to come out on DVD so I can actually support the guy's work. Meanwhile I've looked at the DIVX because I wanted to see it again and it wasn't playing in theatres.

Is it unethical? Could be. I'm sure some rich businessmen find it very unethical. Depends who looks at it though. I'm sure not feeling bad about it.

As for software I now run only run stuff that is free. The last software I bought was Partition Magic 7 because it does things no other free software does.

PS - For those who want to use a Photoshop equivalent GIMP comes pretty close but it isn't as easy to use.

Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

Haran
********************************

 

[xutopia]

Cajun,

I'm sick and tired of analogies based on tangible materials.

If you take a blender off the shelf of a store because you had bought one but lost it you take something away from the store now don't you? It isn't the same as taking a copied piece you already paid for the right to listen to now is it? You don't take money away from someone if you lost your CD and download the MP3s. You just don't make them more money.

The distinction is important so please make an effort to see it.

Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

Haran
********************************

 

[petermeachem]

It's exactly the same thing.
If you lose your cd and buy another from the shop, they have sold two. If you download a copy, they haven't. Suppose there is only one shop in the whole world, that may help you to see it is the same thing.
I recently had my case stolen on holiday with, amongst other stuff, 6 cd's. It would be wrong to download to replace them, so I shall buy them again. I do actually have most of them on the computer so I can listen to Led Zeppelin as I work, so I could just do a copy. I'd rather have the real original cd's and a clear conscience.

http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk

http://www.ourhouseinportugal.co.uk/

 

[xutopia]

Peter!

Isn't it a contradiction here? Shouldn't you delete the copy you have on your computer immediatly because you do not own the original anymore so they aren't backups?

By the same logic that you shouldn't download a copy to replace them you should not have them on your HDD unless they are a backup! Delete them fast!

Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

Haran
********************************

 

[Grenage]

It's a tough call. You can make a backup of a CD in case you damage the original or perhaps lose it, but if it's stolen that means it is being used elsewhere, not your fault granted but still.

In that situation I would probably buy the CD again.

 

[PCLine]

Hi people,

Ethics.

I have choices ~
I can either obtain a free copy of a CD
I can just listen to the music "wherever"
I can go out and buy the CD.

Why do I go out and buy the CD?
Is it because I support the notion of the free market
Is it because I subscribe to the idea of supporting the artist
Is it because I want "ownership" of the product
(there are other possible reasons, so no need to quote them ;-) )

The idea that if you scratched the "old record", you would have to go buy another one is certainly true. But technology has moved on ~ in "the olden days" people would go buy another record because they had no other choice, not because they were "better" citizens.

I subscribe to the idea that I am paying for the CD to support the artist and because the idea of CD's is to be able to access you favourite music when you want. I subscribe to the idea that this is a "one time only" entrance fee.

If I lose the CD or have it stolen ~ well I have already paid my entrance fee so I will aquire my "free" version from the net (guilt free). The fact that someone may be playing my "original" CD somewhere else doesn't negate that I have already paid for it...

That is the problem with ethics ~ you either see the justification or you don't.

As for the "net" ~ give me a moment to be "naive" ~ If everyone bought a copy of every CD produced then no one would object to freely downloading music from the internet.

Let me be cynical ~ The record labels would object, because all they want is "your" money. In fact, if the record companies could charge you for listening to their music on the radio they would but they can't, so they charge the radio stations a fee for each play.

The principle of copyright may appear to have a "morally" sound base, but lets not be fooled into believing that it was designed to be as far reaching in application as it is today. Because if you do believe that to be the case ~ tomorrow you will be paying for the music you listen to on the radio.

All the best.

 

[CajunCenturion]

xutopia - I'm sorry, but the distinction between the physical property being stolen and intellectual property being stolen does not, IMHO, lie within the realm of ethics. From an ethical standpoint, stolen property is stolen property.

The original question is "are copyright violations ever ethical." That is based on the fact that a copyright violation has already taken place. I get the impression from your posts, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you do not believe that you've committed a copyright violation.

To answer the original question, for a copyright violation to be ethical, it would have to be for some greater good. So let's focus on where an ethical heirarchy exists, where a unethical copy violation is for a greater good.

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

 

[Grenage]

Okay, I don't generally believe copyright violations are an ethically correct thing to do. People make their music/software to be sold, it's their choice to sell it and I completely understand it. You don't need to buy it, thats your choice.

My only exception to this so far is as I stated above, copying software to test it out before I buy and then deleting it.

 

[xutopia]

Cajun,

I'm sure you see the distinction. Law and ethics are not the same. Stealing a blender (that cannot be copied for free like an MP3) is not the same as getting a copy of a song online.

If you want to be stuborn just so you can make a point then there is no reason in me trying to argue.

I don't think that a copyright violation is ethical/unethical just because it is illegal. I believe fair use is legal. And fair use is always ethical.

Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

Haran
********************************

 

[sha76]

I think in theory the only time I'd support a copyright violation (I say in theory, 'cos I'm not always so strict with myself in practice, but "Do we always stick to our own ethics?" would be a whole new thread!) would be if the material was needed & it was impractical to buy another copy.
I can't see this happening in many situations, short of being in the middle of nowhere & meeting someone in need of a first aid manual/ car maintainance handbook or similar. An ethical reason to copy music? Can't think of one, but I'm sure someone will try!

Sharon