The discussion regarding intellectual property is a valid one, but it is not the issue that the OP sought to examine.
Please take that discussion to a new thread and stick to the topic of the OP.
[ /Moderating ]
Depends on whether or not you’d pony up to see for yourself, had the item not been available by other methods.
All too often people attack a creative work, declaring it to be offensive to their group, without even seeing it. This is wrong. If you want to complain about a particular work, you should at least see part of it first, to make sure your complaint is valid.
And, for the privilege of seeing the work in order to form a valid judgment, you owe the rights holder some cash.
Well, maybe people should just not do that.
If they want to see it then they can do so in any of the legitimate ways available to them. Being prejudiced against a work or its creator isn’t an ethical justification for stealing a copy of that work.
Why?
The creator of a work isn’t owed a goddam thing.
We CHOOSE, as a matter of public policy, to enforce schemes that sometimes end up with the creator of a work getting some money. And this is because we want more of those creations in the future, and it turns out that since people like money, a scheme where creators sometimes get some money is a good way to accomplish this.
Of course you said “rights holder” because one way that a creator can get money is by selling the rights to the creation to some third party, and then the third party can try to get money from the rest of us. But we, as a public, don’t give a shit about the “rights holder” except that if we allow third parties to purchase creations from creators that creates another way that creators can get some money.
Copyright violation isn’t stealing. It is its own thing. It’s not rape, it’s not theft, it’s not libel, it’s not patent infringment. It’s copyright violation. Calling it theft doesn’t make it theft. Of course, insisting that it isn’t theft doesn’t make it not theft either. But it ain’t theft, because you haven’t taken anything from anyone. Instead, you’ve created a new thing that you didn’t have the right to create. That’s not theft.
For the purposes of this thread it is, that’s what it says in the title.
There’s glory for you.
That’s precisely true. People should look at a work before they condemn it.
Which would involve giving money to the creator, which is the point. Some bigot attacks a minority group, and that group are required to pay him to find out what he said? That seems wrong to me.
No, it’s the opposite of being prejudiced, it’s checking out a work before forming an opinion on it.
At least in my state, there’s no legal concept of “right of way”, just who must yield in certain situations. And vehicles must always yield to pedestrians, so jaywalking is more of a public nuisance offense than an infringement of another’s rights.
But even if the legal situation is different in your state, the analogy of theft via illegal download to jaywalking is ridiculous. It’s a transparent attempt to equate something that most reasonable people view as wrong to something that is generally seen as acceptable in certain circumstances. Not being tightwads about jaywalking doesn’t mean we have to accept that making illegal copies is somehow not stealing.
OK, to answer the actual question, the morality of making a copy of a work doesn’t change just because you find the work objectionable in some way. That doesn’t mean it’s more immoral to make a copy and watch it than it is to borrow a copy and watch it or buy a used copy and watch it.
Or they could just ignore it and move on with their lives. I have never seen Human Centipede, one of the OP’s examples. I have heard it is an unusually disgusting movie. I don’t have enough time to see even all the movies I actually want to see, much less ones that I am unlikely to enjoy. I do not feel any need to confirm that Human Centipede is as disgusting as I’ve heard, nor am I inclined to spend my time ranting about how awful it is.
Maybe they could make use of this thing called a “review”, which allows people to find out about the content of a creative work without having to see it for themselves.
But in the situation described by the OP, our pirate has already formed an opinion about the work before seeing it. That’s his justification for committing piracy, that the work is so offensive the creator doesn’t deserve compensation. So he’s not only formed a negative opinion of the work without seeing it, he’s using this negative opinion as an excuse to commit a crime against the creator or content owner.
I’d say this is at least as bad as, and possibly even worse than, pirating a work that one expects to enjoy. There could be some sort of utilitarian argument made to support a broke teenager pirating a copy of the latest album by his favorite band, as his happiness at getting the music might be said to outweigh the hardship suffered by the band/their label/iTunes because they didn’t get his $9.99. I wouldn’t find this a particularly convincing argument, but “Because I really, really wanted it” is a more sympathetic motive for theft than “Because I wanted to prove to myself that the creator is as big of a jerk as I suspected.”
Having a physical embodiment is hardly a requirement for being a real thing that can be stolen. If you hire somebody to do a service like preparing your taxes or doing physical therapy on your knee or representing you in court, and then don’t pay them after they have delivered their services, is that not theft?
The physical embodiment of some creative work as captured within a DVD is valuable because of the content, not because of the medium. Look at all the CDs that have been distributed as junk mail over the years - a CD has a small intrinsic value, and it is often true of “media copies” that their physical value is trivial compared to the content value.
What do you propose as a mechanism to reward the creators of intellectual property?
What if it’s, for example, Protocols Of The Elders rf Zion, you think people should just ignore that and get on with their lives? Some books genuinely are offensive and need to be attacked.
Lets say that I’m in a discussion about the persecution of Jews through the ages. I want to cite that book as an example of the lies told about them. I’d have to read it first, before I could comment with any knowledge. Should I really have to pay a (hypothetical) copyright holder for the privilege? Would it really be unethical to obtain a pirate copy for my research, and cheat the bastard out of his pay?
Yeah, like the people who decided that *The Satanic Verses *is an evil book, based upon reviews by their leaders.
No, he hasn’t. He describes getting a pirate copy “to see how bad it is.” That means that he has heard bad things about it, but doesn’t accept the description as necessarily accurate. Hence his desire to “see how bad it really is” rather than accept someone else’s statement that it’s bad.
In the year 2011, I think The Protocols of the Elders of Zion can be pretty safely ignored. It’s also a public domain work and can be freely accessed without violating anyone’s copyright.
They can be attacked without stealing from anyone or violating copyright law.
There’s a wonderful place called the library, where you can legally borrow practically any book you could ever want for free. That’s how I read The Da Vinci Code, which turned out to be just as badly written as I’d heard.
So it would be better if they decided the book was *probably *evil based upon reviews of their leaders and then stole it just to be sure? I don’t see how Salman Rushdie better off if his work is both condemned and stolen than if it’s just condemned.
As I said before, this justifies stealing anything and everything. I doubt there is any creative work that has never had bad things said about it. And why should our hypothetical pirate limit himself to stealing works he’s heard bad things about? A work could be well-regarded by others but still not to our pirate’s liking, so why not pirate it just to make sure it’s as good as people say? Why should anyone ever pay for anything if “I wanted to find out if what people were saying about it was true” is sufficient grounds for theft?
So obtain a copy legally so you can review it and attack it and refer to it. Or refer to any of a billion other references where people have made citations.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. (But three rights make a left.)
Yes, exactly like that. If you trust the viewpoint of the book reviewer and think they share your sentiments, then when they say the book is “evil” you are probably going to agree without reading the book yourself. If you don’t find yourself generally in agreement with that book reviewer, then relying on their opinion is rather poor judgement upon your part. But that’s your burden - do you accept that particular reveiwer’s opinion or not? If not, you can seek out other reviewers, or you can legally obtain a copy for yourself. Or you can say “That reviewer is probably full of crap, because they’re generally full of crap, but I don’t care enough to see how much crap they’re full of in this case. Meh.”
So obtain a copy legally to see how bad it is.
There are all sorts of ways to read/watch/listen to a work legally, without a dime going to the creator of the work, or the owner of the work.
So what’s the moral difference between borrowing a book from a library and reading it, and making a copy of that book and reading it? I understand that one is illegal and one is not, what’s the moral distinction?
Given the original premise that “piracy is theft” (which I disagree with - piracy is piracy, is also a crime, and is bad, but it differs to theft which is a separate crime), then no - I would not steal from someone who I disagreed with.
I don’t know, what’s the moral distinction between stealing a book from your friend, and borrowing it but never returning it?
What’s the moral distinction between singing the lyrics to a song while you listen to it on the radio, and quoting the lyrics on a message board to converse about the lyrics?
I’m not saying those are equivalents, I’m saying that the question takes a fine parsing that I’m not ready to engage.
This is a bizarre debate.
My personal opinion about a work’s creator has no bearing on the right or wrong of breaking copyright laws to acquire that creator’s work. How could it? Can I apply that reasoning to other laws I’d like to break because they are transgressions against jerks?