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.

 

[xutopia]

lionell,

My mother in law asked me specifically not to play with my computer while the print she started was running (30 pages high res).

She told so because she was scared the printer would screw up if I played on my computer while it prints. Since I know better is it unethical for me to play on my computer?

Same here if copyright holder tell me not to use their content because they are not being paid for it then by all means they should sell it to me. If they don't then tought luck isn't it! I'm not hurting them am I?

Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

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

 

[sleipnir214]

Your example of your mother-in-law's computer is a very good one. As it is her property, she has the right to issue or revoke license to use of her property. It does not matter whether you know better than she does that your activity will not interrupt her print job -- use of the computer without her license is unethical.

And payment is a consideration only because the owners of intellectual property like movies and CDs have chosen to issue license to access the property in exchange for money. Considerations of "loss of economic return" are specious. Again, you should not view a movie or listen to a CD unless you have been given license to do so.

There are some intellectual property owners that do not require exchange of money for a license -- a good example is the American musical group The Grateful Dead. They gave explicit and implicit permission to any all to record their concerts without exchange of money for the license. They were completely within their right to do so. But they would have been equally within their rights to do so had they required exchange of money for their license.

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

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

TANSTAAFL!

 

[xutopia]

Sleipnir,

It was my computer.

Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

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

 

[sleipnir214]

Did you give her license to use it exclusively?

This sounds to me a situation similiar to an author's selling movie rights to his book. Unless limits are specified at the time of the sale of the license, the author may not have any say whatsoever in the final movie produced.

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

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

TANSTAAFL!

 

[petermeachem]

I'm not sure how copyright etc applies to a company that has gone bust. In the UK at least, the company still exists even if it doesn't if you see what I mean. When we bought our house, part of the garden was owned by a defunct company and we had to apply to the high court to resurrect it, get the patch of land and bury it again.

Gary, it IS like you stole a doughnut. Just because it is easy to steal doesn't make it right. Suppose I left my back door open. Would it be right of you to walk in and help yourself to my cd's. Of course not. IS it ok for you to hack into my computer and help yourself to an mp3. No of course not. Is is ok for me to tell you you can download an mp3 from my computer. NO. The only difference is that tehre are two crooks involved now.

http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk

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

 

[CajunCenturion]

Of course I understand the distinction between ethical and legal behaviors, as evidenced by my post in the long gone thread about video games to minors. There is a further distinction that may apply in this case amongst the contributors:

-- The law is unethical
-- This is an ethical breach of an otherwise ethical law

In either case, the justification for taking such a stance, IMHO, requires that a relatively high standard be met, in order to grant your position credence. Future intended actions on one’s part, or impatience, does not IMHO meet that standard. What is the greater good?

The question is not whether or not there is a distinction, but whether or not the distinction applies in this case.

Fair use is a legitimate argument, but fair use is defined within the copyright law. Fair uses of copyright violations are enumerated within the law, and none of the actions described in previous posts are included in the list of Fair uses of a copyright. So despite our wishes and desires, illegal copying of material is not by law, considered fair use.

The one time entry fee, a novel concept, doesn’t hold from a legal perspective as already explained by sleipnir214. Additionally, copyright law clearly states, that when you purchase a CD/DVD, etc, tn your legal rights only apply to that particular copy. In fact, the law specifically uses the term “particular copy.”

That being said, so far, no one has justified downloading as being legal with respect to copyright law. However, if some one can provide a legal argument, founded in copyright law, which allows for legal downloading without the permission of the author, I’d be more than happy to hear it.

But is it ethical? The first hurdle to cross is the ethical responsibility each of us has as law-abiding citizens of a society. Are we not ethically bound to obey the law of the society? I do not accept the premise that disagreeing with a law if sufficient grounds for violating the law. To be sure, there are ethical situations in which a breach is acceptable, so in this case, what is the high ethical standard that supersedes the basic ethic to obey the law? So far, impatience (future intended action), convenience, common sense, fair use, and one-time entry fee (my apologies if I left one out) have been presented. Fair use and one time entry fee are already discounted within the law itself, and therefore cannot be justifications for breaching the law. That leaves impatience, convenience and common sense to be considered as a higher ethical standard to justify a superceding of the moral imperative the adhere to the law. I don’t see it.

I have presented my thoughts on this matter, and I don’t thing there is much else that I can say. I will continue to listen, and will pipe back in if someone can provide reasonable arguments to the contrary. If holding to this position makes me stubborn, then I’m happy to then I’m happy to plead guilty as charged.

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

 

[xutopia]

sleipnir,

Did you give her license to use it exclusively?

Should I answer that question in binary? Of course not! Am I supposed to make friends and family sign a contract before using my computer?

Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

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

 

[sleipnir214]

xutopia:
It's a matter of interpretation. Did she ask, "Can I use your computer to print this document?" She may have inferred temporary transfer of exclusive rights to the machine.

And two observations when dealing with relatives:
1. Specific contracts are even more important between relatives than between strangers. Once the smoke clears, you may never have to deal with a stranger again. Bad blood between relatives tends to linger.

2. Give your mother-in-law some slack. It's just a good policy, in terms of enlightened self-interest. And remember, you are sleeping with her daughter.


CajunCenturion:
I dispute the novelty of my thoughts on entertainment tickets -- read the fine print on the back of the ticket. Although the licenses on live enterainment is often more explicit, a U.S. movie ticket can have some interesting verbiage, too.


petermeachem:
You had to go through all that with a tangible asset. What must it be like (on either side of the Atlantic) when dealing with intangible assets?

But you've cleared up my point. The ownership of the work can outlast the owner -- but is still in effect.


Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

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

TANSTAAFL!

 

[PCLine]

xutopia,
Just be thankful for small mercies.

Some of our colleagues here seem to have difficulty dealing with abstract concepts.

They see "copyright" and think it is written in stone, but yet they don't seem to be able or prepared to question why copyright "runs out" or how the time limits that have been set have been arrived at (there are a couple of other points that are being missed as well).

"Intellectual property rights" another abstract concept that people are treating as being "written in stone". Just because you desire some particular course of action don't expect evryone to bend over backwards and oblige. If that is what you are expecting you are in for a lot of disappointment.

Just last year "intellectual property rights" were being argued in court over copyright infringement of silence

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2002/09/28/bmmatt28.xml

If you wish to stick to the letter of the law by all means do so. But do not foist your version of ethics as being superior to someone else's because it has the backing of the law.

No matter what the law says, my ethical judment tells me that copying 4'33" of silence is not unethical. Now are you people going to change your minds and square this example away?

All the best.

 

[xutopia]

PCLine,

I'm glad some people are not entirely binary when it comes to law and ethics. We have to stay human as much as possible and copyrighting silence is where I draw the line. I love your link!

All,

Here is an article showing the RIAA suing some college kid for creating a network search engine.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/TechTV/techtv_RIAAvsteen030609.html

Just because some people in his college used the search engine for MP3s and Divx he had to pay 12000$ to the RIAA because the law says so. Not because common sense says so but because the law says so. Another prime example of where law is abusive, giving far too many rights to rich white men and too little to poor normal people like ourselves.

Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

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

 

[xutopia]

I've come to the conclusion that current copyright laws are maladapted for current media formats. They were written before the advent of MP3s/Divx and don't reflect the current reality of our digital age where reproduction and distribution costs are next to nill.

The laws are in place to protect the big players in the industry that want to continue with their flawed business model :

1. pay artist for rights to a recording
2. distribute by truck, boat, plane in the form of a CD/Tape/Video/DVD etc...
3. profit from the sales

The new way to make a profit in the record industry should be :

1. pay artists for rights to a recording
2. distribute online at a smaller fee (you can since you do not have to pay for the fuel to send it anywhere)
3. profit from the online sales

The compagnies are having a hard time changing their business models so they are hoping that writing laws (DMCA) will help them out.

The fact is that reasonable people today prefer buying online than having to go out and buying something elsewhere. People prefer using an MP3 player than a CD player because they can put more songs on an MP3 player.

The big players in the media industry want to keep a stranglehold on distribution and profit from it as much as possible. They are not ready to give us things at a smaller price than before. It's against their "obvious" thinking of profitting as much as possible whenever and wherever they can.

Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

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

 

[skiflyer]

That argument is not new. Just a minor point of history for you xutopia... arguments similar to the ones that started with mp3's were heard with fm radio, and then again with cassette recorders, again with DAT.

It's not just the cheap copying that makes mp3's such a big deal, it has more to do with the easy ability to pass it out to millions of people with no personal contact.

The RIAA just didn't find it worthwhile to track down people giving out tapes to twelve friends. Serving up 60 hours of music to whoever comes along is another issue.

And while I agree that the copyright laws are outdated, too bad, that's the way it is for now... the industry needs to be pushed, but we're capitalists for better or worse, so that should be done through economic pressures, not copyright infringement. Make reasonable contracts with artists, find your better way to distribute the music, then bankrupt the RIAA.

The problem with my above suggestion is that entities like the RIAA don't need to play fair. For example, your cited $12,000 case against a college student was not about what the laws say, it was about a multi-billion dollar company leaning their lawyers on a little guy who didn't have the funds to fight it, so he just rolled over... now we don't know what the legal precedent on the topic is because it wasn't pursued.

Two other comments

1) The staunch supporters of the strict copyright enforcement in this thread who are tying it to ethics do realize your arguments are completely based in a capitalist system. I'm not saying this is good or bad, it certainlly holds complete weight in discussions about legality... but do you really feel comfortable expanding that to an ethical argument? Entire political theories have been put forth to suggest that exactly what you're advocating is unethical. Again, I'm not saying either is a right or wrong world view to hold, I'm just saying it seems to me you're expanding the argument unfairly because 99% of the tek-tips readers come from a particular cultural bias (european/north american) such that capitalism is what we're talking about.

2) I notice two arguments through the threads... the first is the pure ethics/legality of the action. The second is suggesting no ethics are violated because no damage is done. I believe the second is dangerous terrority for an ethical argument, it's just too easy for someone to claim damage. At the same time, IP theft/violation whatever, is not the same thing as theft of a physical object plain and simple, though I believe ericdraven is the only one who seems to purport the opposite view... and sleipnir already provided a much more eloquent distinction than myself.

3) Then my last time putting forth this argument... some common sense needs to be applied. If I buy a CD, and it's at home so I burn my friends onto my (Insert some MP3 player here) while at his house so I can listen to it on the flight home, no one is robbing the artist of their ability to put forth a license of use or some such. In this situation we can reasonably guess that the artist who's intellectual property is up for discussion would allow us to do such.

4) When making difficult comments like my last about the artist thinking it's ok, and the artist not wanting this or that... we need to remember the artist often signs away his rights to the work in exchange for the record label's promotion.

-Rob

Lisa: Dad, that's specious reasoning.
Homer: Why thank you Lisa.

 

[Stevehewitt]

Wow, it has taken me nearly an hour to read all these posts! I really must checkup on Tek Tips more often!

Just a couple of points that I don't think have been mentioned yet:

Many products ( certianly MS ones) require for you to pay the licence, NOT the software. IMHO, if I lose a MS CD I have the licence that I paid for - so I don't mind shelling out £20 for Win2k Server CD without a licence. Infact, (correct me if I am wrong), you can copy MS CD's as much as you like as long as its installed on 1 machine using 1 licence. You can use the same CD for other computers as long as you purchase another licence.

Another issue is that I know WinXP, Win2000 (server & pro), Exchange 2000, SQL Server 2000 and ISA Server are all avaliable for free trial between 30 days (or 60) up to 1 year depending on the product.

I have recently been creating a Access Front-end for a SQL Database that I have in place. Its taken ages, and even on Access I can get a understanding of why software costs as much as it does. I would never take software without paying for it now, and I've only used bloody Access!!! Imagine the VB, Cobol, and PHP developers who spend months and even years coding for some git to come along and help themselves!!!

Now that is unethical! ;-)

Steve Hewitt

 

[skiflyer]

What you don't know is that if you used PHP and mySQL it would be easier and faster .

-Rob

 

[xutopia]

skiflyer gets a star for promoting ethical use of free software rather than using costly proprietary software! LOL

Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

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

 

[cdogg]

skiflyer,
The problem here is that this thread is full of different scenarios:

1) Burning MP3's from a friend's music CD that you own based on "common sense" that the artist/label wouldn't mind (mentioned by you)

2) Downloading a movie not yet available for purchase and is no longer in the theatres

3) Making a backup copy of software that you own described in terms of "fair use"

.
.
.

the list goes on. The scenario in question determines the ethical argument. One case may prompt more references to the law than another case. To me, ethics is based on a code of standards consisting of right and wrong. The realm in which you discuss ethics can be professional, moral, legal, etc. Hence, the varied responses we're seeing.

It is hard to generalize between all the scenarios listed in this thread, but let's try:

[tab]Suppose an individual/company/corporation develops a product and
[tab]licenses it for sale to the public. The terms listed in that license
[tab]explicitly state that duplication or distribution is prohibited, and
[tab]you are bound to these terms before using this product.

Exceptions for duplication and distribution are not explained. Therefore, any act of either is then defaulted to what the law allows (kindly laid out by Cajun) which is not much.

The 2 main questions I propose are:
1) How can it be ethically justified to make any copy outside of what the agreement allows?
2) How can it be ethically justified for anyone to partake in copying, receiving or distributing the product thereafter?

We do not want to rely on the law as our basis for ethics in all cases. However in this situation, if you put legal matters aside, what justifies the act of doing something that was prohibited in an agreement between you (the buyer) and the vendor? Remember, any use of that product was acceptance to the terms of the agreement. So the fact that you didn't purchase it doesn't mean you aren't bound to the agreement (ethically and legally).

You may have your reasons, but to me the act of making that agreement forfeits your right to justify your actions later without re-establishing a new agreement directly with the vendor (whether that vendor be an artist, record label, or any other form of business).

I see no way out legally or morally...




~cdogg

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

 

[cdogg]

The only option is either NOT to agree in the first place or change the terms of the agreement leaving the possibility of special circumstances.

It may seem like you're doing nothing wrong, but technically you are! An agreement is and agreement. It is the ultimate factor in deeming an action ethical or unethical.

 

[manarth]

alternatively, the agreement may have been written in the awareness of a legal exception (such as fair use) - so this wasn't covered in the agreement because it was already covered in law.

where lies your ethics then? short of phoning the artist first and asknig their intentions, we're left either second-guessing: relying on the law's interpretation, relying on the agreement's wording, or relying on our own morals and our interpretation of what we think the artist meant.

<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]

 

[skiflyer]

I can actually answer #1, but the second question is cheating because it pre-supposes an answer to #1 .

It comes down to common sense. The agreements are written by lawyers for the purpose of holding up in court (even though to my knowledge not a single EULA has been challenged in court). Therefore, they have some wiggle room, some actions which are strictly illegal but are within the good fait part of the agreement.

Examples of such are things like the man upgrading his computer and re-installing his $10,000 software package on two systems at the same time during the upgrade path... though he's careful to erase it once the stability of the new system is determined, and at no point does he use it to double his productivity. Or the mom who splices in 10 seconds of crowd cheering from a DVD for her home movies, which will never be copied sold or distributed.

Then things get pushed a little, can I burn my friends CD into my MP3 player cause he has the computer setup at his house, and mines in boxes because I'm moving... I do own it though... sure why not, it's technically speaking now outside the bounds of fair use, but in my opinion still well within all concepts of common sense. What about burning all my MP3's to my own computer, then streaming it to my work computer. Things are getting hairier now.

The problem is it lies in common sense, and everyone likes to stress common sense to its limits and beyond, using it as hindsight justification rather than actually forethought.

Alright, I gotta get some work done, and I also stated my &quot;big opinion&quot; on this in the thread which was removed... and that's simply that yes, I agree we need to honor the agreements we make... things like downloading the movies or copying your friends cd's are unethical (I don't say this judgementally, I'm not above it, but it is my opinion).

-Rob

 

[cdogg]

Yeah, I think it's hard to differentiate between the action of going outside the agreement and the decision to perform that action.

Depending on the case IMHO, the decision can be ethical, but the action is always unethical.

Maybe that doesn't make sense? Perhaps it's becoming a play on words, throwing this discussion into a whirlwind of confusion. Now I'm confused!






~cdogg

&quot;The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.&quot;
- A. Einstein