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.

 

[CajunCenturion]

-->"I subscribe to the idea that this is a "one time only" entrance fee."

Who's idea is this? Can someone please provide me any legal, moral, ethical, or other means upon which this concept exits, and is applicable, other than being someone's desire?

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

 

[PCLine]

it's my idea ;-)

And we are talking ethics not morals and legalities.

And it was you who said that "no one is going to dictate to you what your ethics should be" (paraphrased becasue the original thread was "destroyed&quot. So yes, I would agree with you, ethics are based on our own "desires" of how we would like things to be.

Regards.

 

[Grenage]

Certain software is this way. I've bought a few piece of shareware in which your old code will work on any future version.

 

[EricDraven]

Xutopia
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.

Does this then mean that because I have seen the Two Towers and Matrix Reloaded at the flicks, its fine for me to download them off the net just because they arent out on DVD yet? After all, when mr lawman comes knocking at my door Im sure the "But officer, I'm still gonna buy them when they come out!" excuse will work wonders. This is quite clearly breaking the law and in no way could it be construed as ethical!

Incidentally, you say that was the last movie you downloaded online. I wonder what was the ethical reasoning behind the first, second and God knows how many other movie downloads you made?

Arte Et Labore

 

[petermeachem]

So gary, you are saying that if it is easy to steal something, then it is ok to do it?

"Stealing a blender (that cannot be copied for free like an MP3) is not the same as getting a copy of a song online."

It is easy, as I discovered to my cost, to steal the contents of a Fiat Punto's locked boot. Doesn't make it right.

http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk

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

 

[xutopia]

EricDraven,

You are one of the people don't see the distinction between legal and ethical.

Instances where the law can be broken all while being ethical are known.

For example in certain countries, military personel who have sworn to obey their commands can be prosecuted if they disobey an order to commit crimes against humanity. They commit a crime by not killing millions of people. Is this unethical?

A jew in Nazi germany doesn't wear a star to escape prosecution. It was the law for all jews to wear a star. Was this unethical?

Also in Nazi Holland you could pay by death if you helped a Jew family avoid prosecution. Was it unethical to help Anne Frank's family?

An african friend of mine made fake passports to escape prosecution in Rwanda. This act was illegal. Was it unethical?

Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

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

 

[Grenage]

If you downloaded a movie that you had seen in the cinema, becuase it wasn't out yet on DVD I would not see this as unethical providing you ethicly bound yourself to buying it when it was released.

 

[EricDraven]

Xutopia All valid points, however you seem to have escaped the most valid one. You are not in Rwanda. You are not helping people escape evil dictatorships and you are not being chased by machine gun waving Nazi's, in short, there are no extenuating circumstances in your case.

You are sat in front of your PC and only one person is making the simple decision to unethically download a free movie, an that person is you! You can throw as many vastly out of context analagies as you like at me, but you know that I am right on this one!

I am well aware of the differences between law and ethics, but your case is quite straight forward. You are cheating the hard working people who make movies and music out of money that is due to them and anyway you look at it, that is unethical!

Arte Et Labore

 

[lionelhill]

Testing before you buy (see car analogy earlier and various posts)

If I write a piece of software, it is up to me to decide whether to let you test it before you use it, or whether I want a downpayment (and a list of disatisfied customers!) first. OK, I'd be stupid not to let you test it, and you probably won't buy it under my terms, but if I want to be stupid, it's my program until I sell it to you and I'm entitled to do with it what I will, because it is entirely my property.

If you choose to nick it before I allow you, you are a criminal, whatever your intentions about buying it eventually or giving it back if you don't want it. And since you have taken something that belongs to me, albeit for a short period, without asking me, and without my permission, you are also unethical.

Is there really anything else to say?

 

[PCLine]

EricDraven,

you have introduced another concept, enjoying the fruits of ones labour ie. You are cheating the hard working people who make movies and music out of money that is due to them...

That is a different matter...

Is it ethical to sell something for as much as you can sell it for or for as much as you need to make "an honest living" ;-) or for enough to just to break even.

"Cheating" as you put it can be seen from 2 sides, in this instance that is the crux of this ethical question. So far you haven't demonstrated that it is unethical to "cheat" in the manner outlined by xutopia ~ so far you have made a "moral" case that it is unethical ;-)

You can't legimately say that xutopia's ethics are wrong because someone else is deprived of profits ~ because to do that you have to justify in ethical terms what "acceptable" profits are and then demonstrate that xutopia's actions impact "those" goals.

If you can set no "ethical" tarrif on levels of profits then how can you say that someone is being unethical by not contributing to those profits?

I was just wondering?

All the best.

 

[EricDraven]

PCLine You can't legimately say that xutopia's ethics are wrong because someone else is deprived of profits ~ because to do that you have to justify in ethical terms what "acceptable" profits are and then demonstrate that xutopia's actions impact "those" goals.

This was merely one point that I plucked out of the air. Xutopia is also guilty of cheating the rest of us law abiding people who are patiently waiting for the movie to be released to purchase. Ethically, this is wrong. Why should a lawbreaker get to see the movie before the rest of us? Its like rewarding inmates by showing them all new releases several months before they hit theatres!

Is it ethical to sell something for as much as you can sell it for or for as much as you need to make "an honest living" or for enough to just to break even.

This isnt a valid point. Everything has a price and you the consumer have a choice, walk away or purchase. After all, a ferrari is well out of my budget range and I would love one, but I arent going to nick it on the premise that in the future at some point I would probably have bought one anyway!

Arte Et Labore

 

[petermeachem]

Who has to justify 'acceptable profits'? The price of something (consumer stuff anyway) is set to maximise sales and therefore profit. It has very little to do with cost of production. And there is no reason why it should. Some items in supermarkets are sold at a loss and some at a large profit.
'An honest living' is open to interpretation. I'm sure the Beckhams version of just about enough to scrape by is not the same as mine.
Unless you are just having a wind-up of course.

http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk

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

 

[PCLine]

Hi EricDraven,

Let's not start talking about the treatment of inmates...that will only lead to "anxiety" judging by the assumptions that inform your statement, lol.

Your defense in quoting "market mechanisms" fails to address the ethical issues I raised in my question.

And please stay away from inappropraite analogies ~ they undermine your argument.

 

[PCLine]

Hi Peter,

Not a "wind-up" per se.

Just highlighting that just because "something" appears to be acceptable does not mean that it is necessarily ethical and just because "something" appears to fly in the face of what is acceptable does not necessarily mean that it is unethical.

If people insist on establishing or verifying the legitimacy of ethics by refering to laws ad infinitum then we are never going to get past the prejudices (and powers) that inform the making of those laws nadd we will continue to, in effect, discuss legalities.

All the best.

 

[EricDraven]

PCLine
The only reason you raised another ethical question (how much should somebody charge for a product/service) was to distract from the fact that downloading copyrighted material is both unethical and illegal! I can even quote you if you like

You can't legimately say that xutopia's ethics are wrong because someone else is deprived of profits

This is basically a nice way of saying stealing. I would really love it if you could show me just one case where a lone user sat in front of their PC was ethically correct by downloading a movie to watch! The problem is that you cant. Instead you will no doubt raise another pointless argument about fat cats in suits overcharging in the first place. Unfortunately for you, high prices do not equal the right to steal (highlighted by my apparently wholey inappropriate analagy).

You can throw as many smoke screens my way as you like, the fact remains that it is unethical to illegally download copyrighted material for your own personal enjoyment!

Arte Et Labore

 

[Grenage]

Well that's your opinion and your entitled to it

Many of don't see any problem with downloading a movie in advance if we intend to buy it when it is released. In fact I propose that a film company wouldn't mind this at all if there was a method of controlling it.

 

[PCLine]

Well said that man.

 

[xutopia]

EricDraven,

I'm not here to convince stuborn people to believe what I feel is common sense.

People get confused with media content. It isn't like a car or a blender, but something that can be copied at no cost from the original material. Hence I am not costing the artists anything if I make a copy. And I certainly will pay them for their work as soon as they allow me to do so.

It isn't like as if I stole a doughnut from the shop and told them I'd pay them for it later on. This isn't the scenario I'm living. I was willing to pay for something, ordered it and the order got cancelled because some theatres in Canada are still playing the movie. The geographical area I'm in does not (I'd have to drive 11 hours to see it at the movies).

I cannot buy the item because the sale is delayed until further notice in all of Canada. So I watched it on my computer and will buy it when it comes out on DVD. What is the big deal ethically speaking?

I'm calling this fair use. Be it as it may it could be illegal but there are no proofs anywhere of what I did. I do not have a blender in my kitchen, nor did any artist or businessmen suffer from loosing money for something they aren't even yet selling to me. Heck because after watching it again I may have really liked it so much as to buy even more movies from Michael Moore they may have made more money with me downloading the DIVX! How's to complain?

And how am I cheating the rest of law abiding individuals? Because you are a sucker and waiting doesn't mean I want to. The electronic media exist, it is there, costing no one when I reproduce it (well ok electricity but I pay my bills). How do you get hurt in the process as a law abiding individual?

If I were to not buy the DIVX afterwards I could see how I did cross the line but here I'm merely being intelligent. Why wait if I can have it right away? I'll be paying for it as soon as they allow me!

Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

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

 

[sleipnir214]

Lots of things brought up in this thread do not apply to the topic. Copyright infringement is not an economic issue. Copyright infringement is not a theft issue.



Copyright infringement cannot be meaningfully compared to theft. Theft involves depriving the rightful owner the use of an item. You can't do that with intellectual property, unless one of you know of some mind-erasing technology I don't know about.

Violating copyright is unethical in general for one very simple reason -- the owner of an intellectual property has the right to say how that property is to be used.

When you go to a cinema and sit down in one of its theatres, the only thing that ticket bought you is a license to view the movie one time. That ticket does not give you license to record and redistribute the movie -- hell, it doesn't even give you the license to see the movie twice. So at the moment someone pulls a camcorder out of a backpack and starts recording, he is in violation of license of intellectual property, which is unethical (and illegal). If I download his video, then I am also making use of intellectual property without license -- thus I am behaving unethically (and illegally). You can't argue "but I'm going to go see the movie once it's released in my area" -- the simple act if violation of license is in and of itself unethical (and illegal). You are depriving the owner control of use of the property.

When you purchase a CD, you aren't purchasing music. You are purchasing a limited license to listen to that music. The reason a copy of the music is given to you is that that is the easiest and most portable way to enable you to exercise the license you have purchased. This is why ripping a CD to your own MP3 player is ethical (and legal in most places under "fair use&quot -- you are merely applying your license to a modified medium. However, you must have purchased an applicable license to be able to excercise any kind of "fair use" doctrine. Again, arguing "but I'm going to buy the CD tomorrow" also cannot apply -- you listened to the music without license, which is in and of itself an unethical act (and an illegal act in a lot of places).



The are limited circumstances I can see where a violation of a copyright might be if not ethical at least not highly unethical. For example, if you legally use licensed software published by a company that has gone out of business and you require more licenses. If you have in good faith exhaustively tried every effort to obtain more licenses, and if you have failed in your attempts, then I can see copying the software to more machines as possibly being an ethical act. It will still be illegal, though.

Under U.S. law, if I create a work, it is protected by copyright for the rest of my life plus 70 years. If a company is the creator (software, for example), the work is protected for 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, which ever is shorter. My copying the software after good-faith efforts does violate copyright law (I'm in the U.S. and assuming a U.S. company).

But my ethical consideration was based on violating a right, not violating the law. I suppose some assets-selloff clearinghouse could have bought the assets of the defunct software company, but what if that purchase only included tangible assets? And suppose the defunct company was an incorporated entity (equivalents [I think]: "proprietary limited" in the U.K. and Australia, "GmBH" in Germany)? The stockholders do not have any ownership of the assets of the company, so they cannot make a direct claim. The programmers can't make a claim at all -- as the company's employees, this would have been a "work for hire".

The copyright will exist for another ~87 years, so my act would be illegal. But whose rights am I violating?


Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

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

TANSTAAFL!

 

[lionelhill]

Yes, but the question still remains, "Did the artists give you permission to view their film?"
If they didn't, whatever their reason, then you are on ethically bad ground viewing it. You are treating someone else's intellectual property in a way that they specifically asked you not to.

It's important to separate the concepts of "Me" and "You", and keep a firm grip on the difference between being ethically OK and demanding to be treated fairly. It may be ethically wrong for me to treat you unfairly by denying you access to my property, but that doesn't make it ethically right for you to nick it! Move over, Robin Hood! If I choose to be unfair, that's my problem.