Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!

Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!

Register Log in
  • Congratulations strongm on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Are copyright violations ever ethical? 17

Status
Not open for further replies.
KornGeek

KornGeek

Programmer
Aug 1, 2002
1,961
US
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.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
After much reflection on this topic, here are some of the conclusions I've reached.

Very seldom could copyright violations actually be considered ethical. However, we often view them as inconsequential and harmless and generally don't give them much thought when we commit these violations. The attitude of "it's not hurting anybody" is very common, whether it is a rationalization, excuse, or slogan.

I believe the often heard excuse of "I never would have bought it anyway, so I didn't deprive them of any money" is used in different ways by different people. Here are the ways I see it being used:
1) "I never spend my money to pay for something I can steal so easily."
2) "I'm not that interested in the (music, software, etc) that I would actively go out and buy it, but because it was available, I decided to check it out."
3) "I like the (music, software, etc) and I would be willing to pay a reasonable price for it, but I don't believe the prices being charged are reasonable."

The distinctions between the three are subtle, but in my mind important. Category 1 is hopeless, and you can never reach them. Category 2 is using this as a method of advertising, and if the quality is good might be converted into customers. Category 3 is where many of us fall much of the time. We believe that prices have become so over-inflated that we don't feel guilty over our actions.

Focusing on the music aspect of this discussion, I have many mp3s that were obtained through means that the RIAA would like to disallow. Under fair use, it becomes hazy whether mp3s copied from a friend's CD a legal or not. Most of these songs I would be willing to purchase for a dollar or two. However, to buy a single is usually about $7-8 and the entire CD is about $15. Considering that the other songs on the CD are crap in my opinion, I don't want to spend that money. I don't believe I am alone is this outlook. I think the majority of people who download or copy mp3s either listen to them and dislike them, or would be willing to pay a small amount for the right to it.

If I am correct, the RIAA is missing out on a potential gold mine. Their current course of actions is giving them a bad reputation and making many enemies (and not bringing in much revenue). If they instead would examine on-line distribution for reasonable prices, they could be making allies out of most of us and bringing is money at the same time.

There will always be the group 1 people who will steal the music. There's not much you can really do. However, most of us would prefer to "do the right thing" as long as its not too much of an inconvenience. High prices and low quality (of the music not the recording) often make purchasing entire CDs not worth the hassle.

So, in summary, I believe that most of us who violate copyrights believe it to be unethical, but not severerly so. We would probably be more inclined to honor copyrights if we felt that we were treated more fairly.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
" ...most of us would prefer to "do the right thing" as long as its not too much of an inconvenience."

"I believe that most of us who violate copyrights believe it to be unethical, but not severerly so."

Oh what a slippery slope we're on.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I would really like an [Avril Lavigne cd], but I think they are too expensive so I'll just [download] one from the [Internet].

I would really like an [Lotus 7], but I think they are too expensive so I'll just [steal] one from the [carpark].

The only difference between these two is the object in question and the ease of stealing same. Anybody who thinks otherwise is probably justifying uncivilised behaviour by pretending it's an ethical choice. If you can say the first example is ok ethically, then I can say the second is too.

A very sliipery slope.



 
Upvote 0 Downvote
KornGeek,
I was willing to let this thread die and rest in peace. However, it is hard to believe that you would draw a conclusion that justifies copyright infringment.

Many of us can relate to and agree with how you feel. But doing something illegally because you disagree with the law or company policy is not the way to go about it. It is your right to charge whatever you want for a product or service that you are selling to the public. It is NOT THE RIGHT OF THE PUBLIC to dictate what price you should or should not charge. That is very unamerican...

__________________________________________________

~cdogg
[tab]"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources"
[tab][tab]- A. Einstein
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think the latest bunch of posts are also skipping the subtlety of the question. I personally am not claiming that copying music I don't own is ethical. However, there are copyright violations which involve copying music I do own... I believe those are ethical.

It's unfair to give the obvious answer because you narrow the scope of the question so greatly.

-Rob
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
skiflyer,
Yes, I think at some point we were discussing the exceptions to the obvious. I was merely responding to KornGeek's last post, particularly when he said:

"[blue]However, to buy a single is usually about $7-8 and the entire CD is about $15. Considering that the other songs on the CD are crap in my opinion, I don't want to spend that money. I don't believe I am alone is this outlook. I think the majority of people who download or copy mp3s either listen to them and dislike them, or would be willing to pay a small amount for the right to it[/blue]"


This is just an outrageous statement IMO that doesn't flow with the rest of the thread. This is an obvious declaration that the MP3's downloaded are not owned.

__________________________________________________

~cdogg
[tab]"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources"
[tab][tab]- A. Einstein
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
skiflyer,
Making mp3s of CDs you own could reasonably be covered under fair use. I wouldn't consider that unethical.

CajunCenturion, cdogg, strongm, and others,
I agree that this is a very slippery slope. I am not saying that this is ethical. On the contrary. I believe it is unethical, but I'm acknowledging that I have done it, as have many others. I'm trying to understand why, so that we may stop the progression down the slippery slope.

petermeacham,
There is a very obvious difference between downloading a song and stealing a car. When you steal a car, you are depriving someone else of their ability to use the car, you are adding wear and tear to the vehicle, and inflicting a material cost on them. When you download a song, you are making a copy, which does not deprive others of their ability to use it, cause wear to the original, or inflict a material cost. A better analogy would be copying video tapes, or unauthorized duplication of a photograph.

That being said, neither action is ethical. However, because most of us don't steal cars, I'm choosing to ignore that vein of discussion. I'm trying to figure out why we know that it is unethical to copy music (and other materials) but tend to do so anyway.


We are on a very slippery slope, but acknowledging this is the first step to halting our slide.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Question to All:

When did stealing require the existence of a physical object? Why is stealing music you don't own different from stealing a car you don't own? Why is stealing an idea from someone else different than stealing their bike?

When did stealing get redefined from "taking something that does not belong to you", to "taking a physical object that does not belong to you"?


Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I don't think that that question is so difficult peter... I think phrases like...

faceless corporation
victimless crime
super-rich celebrity
poor me
monopoly
price-fixing
wouldn't have bought it anyway

cover at least 90% of the reasons people do it without feeling too bad about it. Then of course there're the people who know it's very wrong and do it anyway.

-Rob
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Those're the justifications both before the fact and after the fact.

The "reasons" are pretty simple... people want something for nothing. Yeah sure, a small chunk are "demoing" to see where to spend their money and whatnot (still have yet to meet this mythical individual who deletes every copy they don't purchase within a very short timeframe)... but if we want to talk about statistically important percentages people want something for nothing.

My interpretation of the question was why do we do it once we know it's wrong, hence my answer.

-Rob
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
There's very little point having this discussion, frankly (which is why I've kept out of it so far)

The people who think that infringing copyright/intellectual rights is perfectly OK have reached a point where they don't even understand why anyone can criticise their actions. Hey, it's harmless, there is no victim, all I'm doing is exercising fair use, noone is hurt, etc., etc., etc. keep getting rolled out. And the people that think this way really don't understand why it is an issue at any level.

I have some sympathy (without actually agreeing with the view); the digital age, and being brought up with it, leads to the idea that copying something that isn't physical (most proponents of the "copying is OK; see previous arguments" camp) really, really don't believe that there are an ethical, moral or legal issue involved at all. They really can't see it.



 
Upvote 0 Downvote
No.

Ted

Proofread carefully to see if you any words out
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
And if you participated in such a survey, how would you answer the questions?

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It wouldnt really matter Cajun, as I read it, only 500 people actually took the survey!

Thats equivalent to five family fortunes surveys, and I dont remember ever meeting a single person who took part in any of those either...


When your feeling down and your resistance is low, light another cigarette and let yourself go [rockband]
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Indeed. A recent survery showed that 99% of surveys were complete rubbish.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

hilfy
  • Locked
  • Question
Ethical Conundrum 1
Replies
4
Views
77
hilfy
hilfy
Welshbird
  • Locked
  • Question
You Tube video, copyright and training 1
Replies
10
Views
99
Welshbird
Welshbird
Mountainbear
  • Locked
  • Question
What are the best ways to get job leads?
Replies
4
Views
92
mmorancbt
mmorancbt
TeeJayWA
  • Locked
  • Question
Requiring techs to report observed violations 2
Replies
11
Views
183
AndrewTait
AndrewTait
MasterRacker
  • Locked
  • Question
Privacy's getting harder to protect every day
Replies
1
Views
58
ANFPS26
ANFPS26

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top