Until you get it through your head that, although not the same thing, they are not mutually exclusive.
Damn, I missed it. All I read was some overwrought rhetoric about Art being meant to be seen and some irrelevant ramblings about the injustice of denying earthshatteringly amazing movies to poor people. I suppose it is possible that the infringing upon someone’s rights, violating licensing agreements, violating the law, and dishonestly gaining access to the movie can be outweighed by the good of (whatever crap you’re arguing is good). Renting Harry Potter and the Lord of The Ringu or BrokeBack to the Future and copying it on your harddrive so you can watch it whenever you want doesn’t really fit that bill.
To answer the OP: No, it isn’t unethical or immoral unless you promised not to do it, and there are rare situations where breaking a promise is ethical anyway. Yes, it is illegal. (I don’t buy the personal use justifications in some of the responses to this thread. Come on, just admit to yourself that you’re breaking the law. There’s no shame in it; it’s just one of many bullshit laws, and I doubt it’s the only one you’ve broken.)
Not necessarily. If the guy across the street spends two weeks decorating his house for Christmas, then asks you to pay him for making your view more festive, are you obligated to pay? How about if he honestly believed you’d be willing to pay, and he wouldn’t have done it if he thought you weren’t going to pay him for the service? If you still don’t want to give him any money, is it unethical for you to look out your front window?
I’d say no. You never agreed to pay him for his labor, he just chose to do it on his own, and because the fruits of that labor are right there for everyone to see–and, importantly, because you and everyone else can enjoy his nativity scene without depleting it or costing him anything more–you’re free to enjoy the fruits of his labor for nothing. The information on a DVD is also right there for anyone to see (once they have access to the physical disc, say by renting it from Blockbuster), and it can be enjoyed/copied without depleting it or costing the video store or the movie company anything.
I’d say businesses shouldn’t be allowed to override consumers’ decisions simply on the notion that their present business model won’t work unless they can control what other people do in their own homes.
The differences between copying information and demanding a car for below market price are so obvious and vital that your comparison is laughable. If you leave the dealership with a car, they don’t have that car anymore, do they? So they’ve lost something that they paid for, which makes them poorer after your transaction than they were before. Perhaps you should work a magic replicator beam in there somehow and try again.
I would be interested in hearing your explanation for this. I believe ethics and legality are orthogonal (I don’t think you really meant “mutually exclusive”); some things are legal but unethical, some are ethical but illegal, some are both legal and ethical, and others are both unethical and illegal. Congressmen are hardly arbiters of ethics, so how can the laws they write dictate whether someone else’s actions are ethical or not?
Well, gee, you got me there. I guess you’ve boxed me into a corner in which if Hollywood makes a movie, puts it out for showing on a public corner, they can’t compel people to pay for it.
Except that nobody is forcing consumers to engage in a contract with Blockbuster or Netflix, a contract that quite clearly limits what consumers are allowed to do with the product being rented. If you rent a movie, you’re agreeing not to copy it. See the Netflix user agreement posted earlier in the thread. If you give these stores your patronage, you are agreeing to uphold their business model through the force of that binding contract you’re agreeing to when you fork over your money. If you don’t like the service being rendered, you shouldn’t be a customer; but you have no right to agree to rental contracts and then unilaterally change the terms of the contract to make DVD rental into DVD ownership.
As far as the car situation goes, you’re ignoring the relevent point: one of the basic requirements for a valid contract has to involve a meeting of the minds. If you enjoy services or products in a manner not contemplated by the seller, nor without a purpose clearly defined and justified in law, you are engaging in an unethical business practice.
So yes, by renting a DVD you do indeed promise not to copy it. Is this one of those promises that’s fine to break? Is it really so difficult to actually buy the movie that it becomes a noble ideal to break one’s word?
Sheesh. Of course you aren’t obliged to pay, unless you agreed to beforehand. If an artist puts something up in public view without any prior payment agreement, he is shit out of luck. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand, however, in which an artist has created a work, and restricts access to it according to agreed payment and terms. If Blockbuster were in the habit of simply playing movies in the street then accosting people for cash, you’d have a point. However, if you’ve actually been into one of these so-called “video stores”, you’ll probably have noticed that this isn’t what they do.
This is utter sophistry. You rented the DVD for a price, and by so doing agreed to certain terms, such as not copying it or displaying it to large numbers of people. By copying it you are costing the movie company something, because if you hadn’t noticed, a retail copy costs more (because you get more). By displaying it to large numbers of people for free or for cash, you are costing the movie company something because those people need not now rent or buy the movie. Your argument appears to be solely “well, I can do this, so it must be ethical.”
To return to your neighbour/lights analogy, it is more as if your neighbour had erected a 20 foot wall around his property, and constructed an elaborate display within. He then charges $2 for entry, on the understanding that you won’t take photos. Your actions are equivalent to paying the $2, agreeing the terms, then helping people to jump the fence, and taking as many pictures as you like. You may feel that this is genuinely ethical; after all, the light display is still there, so your neighbour has lost nothing, right? Right?
I’ll ask the same question of you, given that, by copying a rented movie, you are violating the law, infringing upon someone’s rights, and increasing the rights granted to you by the copyright holder without permission, where is the good that outweighs those ills?
Your tortured analogy may work if what we were debating taping of a freely provided television show for personal use, but we’re not. A closer analogy would be if your neighbor spent time and money and turned his house into a haunted house, and charged admission. Then you sneak in without permission and without paying and experience the haunted house against the wishes of the owner. Even though you’re not videotaping and selling your adventure for profit, you’re still acting unethically.
Your absolutely right if you watched the movie 18 times during the rental period. But when you copy it, you’re violating their rights.
You explained my thoughts better than I did, as did another poster who stated that, all things being equal, it is ethcial to follow the law. Law and ethics are certainly not the same, but they do inform each other.
The only way to restrict access to information is to keep it secret. If it’s made available to the public, even for a fee, then it may as well be sitting on a street corner.
Ah yes… kind of like how Roger Ebert costs a movie company something every time he gives one of their films a thumbs-down, or how a friend of yours might cost the movie company something when he lets you borrow one of his DVDs instead of buying your own copy.
Well, you’ve trespassed on his land.
You’ve also broken your contract with him. I suppose it is unethical to break your contract with a video store - if indeed there is one. I’m not a Blockbuster customer, but it seems they make their customers sign a contract. Not all video stores do.
Other than that, I see nothing objectionable with the scenario. You’re undermining his attempt to make money, but you’re under no obligation to support it in the first place.
Violating the law: not unethical.
Infringing upon someone’s rights: those rights are not ethically theirs to begin with.
Increasing the rights granted to me by the copyright holder: again, they aren’t theirs to grant.
Yes, but only because you’re trespassing. Land is a form of scarce physical property; data is not.
Those rights are fictional, invented in copyright law, and they have no bearing on ethics.
All things are not equal in this case - copyright infringement is a shining example of how an action can be illegal yet ethical, IMO.
If you take the position that the creator of any intellectual property has no right to the work he/she’s created, of course it’s not unethical to copy a rented movie. Heck, with that view, stealing the movie, copying it and disseminating it at a profit aren’t crimes. Plagarism wouldn’t be unethical either, I imagine.
I disagree that land, or even tangible items, are the only forms of property rights that we should respect.
Rights do not exist merely in the law, but also in ethics. Once again, if you believe, in the ethical sphere, the creator of a book, movie, music, etc. has no rights in her creation, of course copying a DVD isn’t unethical.
You’ve laid out a consistent case that the non-recognition of any intellectual property rights leads to the conclusion that copying a DVD is not unethical. I’d still like to know the good that comes from it. Even accepting you’re theory, which I don’t, is there any good served other than the copier gets to watch a movie they didn’t buy whenever they wish?
I can’t possibly explain this better than Hamlet had done in this thread. But I would like people who are arguing that it’s ethical to please stop pretending that you’re renting the physical disc for the sake of renting the physical disc. No one would ever intentionally rent a blank DVD. It’s the content that you’re renting not the medium.
Plain and simple, if you’re copying a rented or borrowed DVD, it’s for purely selfish reasons, which IMO, render them unethical reasons.
Although this situation is different, I don’t think it would be unethical to copy a car.
Nobody has attempted to state that the information on the disc is irrelevant. They are correctly stating that Blockbuster rents movies which are, in their case, physical items that must be returned to them. The only one confusing the subject is you.
Really, if I copy Shindler’s List to show it to a class, am I doing it for selfish reasons? In your opinion, what makes copying a rented movie different from copying one you own? Both are currently (under most circumstances) against the law. If you were to ask the copyright holder, they would likely refuse your request to make a copy. You are, under your standards, depriving the owner of the copyright of money in both hypotheticals. Backing up a movie you own has the same effect on the producer. Why do you see them as ethically different?
RIM SHOT!
I guess you missed the part of the OP that I have bolded. I never represented plagiarism as ethical.
Are you a liar, or do you have reading comprehension problems?
You say that publishing it is unethical. I say that putting forth someone elses work is unethical for publication or using it for a class is unethical. Theft of intellectual property in any way is, to me, clearly unethical. You seem to think otherwise and you’re consistent about it. Good for you.
If you make a copy of material that you own for archival purposes (a backup copy) is fine because you’re protecting an investment for something that you purchased ethically. Renting is an entirely different beast than purchase. Backing up does not have the same effect as making a copy of a rental. Backing up is not denying a sale. You’re denying a primary sale to the person who produced the product if you copy something that you rented. If you want the product, but it, don’t rent it.
Why do you have to burn a copy of something that you rented to show it to a class? Why not just just show the copy that you rented and then return it to the store?
As for the physical disc part, see post #102, post #61, and you yourself in post #23.
Good god, would you knock it off, already, with this argument style of just throwing junk up on the wall and hoping something sticks? If one thing isn’t working, just throw something else out there and hope that works instead?
You say in one place that movie renters are only interested in having customers possess the “physical disk” for a certain amount of time, and then you go and change your argument and deny that anyone has aruged that renters actually do have an interest in protecting content.
Remember on page one when you said this: “The understanding is that you have access to the physical disc for an agreed upon period of time. You only have to give it back because they want to rent it to someone else.”
So, make up your mind. Is Blockbuster renting the intangible content of a DVD, or is it merely renting a shiny flat object for a few days at a time?
I also recall that “cite” you had earlier which was nothing more than a philosophical discussion about intellectual property, primarily talking about the alleged societal interest in having software accessable to all so that others may make improvements to existing products. I challenged you on where that opinion piece made any points about the ethics of copying movies, and you went on to accuse me and others of not reading the article, when, in fact, there’s no substantive discussion about copying DVDs in the entire damn thing.
And finally, you claim: “I never represented plagiarism as ethical.” Yeah, all you did was say: “Plus the arguments I hear from people who abhor plagiarism seem weak to me… What am I missing about plagiarism, cheating, and incorrect citation that bothers people so much.”
I wouldn’t have chosen to put the case in the same words that CapnPitt did, but it is abundantly clear that you have consistently argued that there should be no consequences for stealing the intellectual work of others.
brickbacon I want to apologize now for using the overstated language that I did. Stealing is probably too harsh a term. As, I believe, was your use of the word “liar.” I hope we can turn down the heat a bit and continue in a more respectful fashion. Again, my apologies, and I look forward to your responses.
Let me just clarify: I take the position that the creator of any intellectual property has no right to stop other people from using or distributing the work he/she’s created. The creator has the same rights to use and distribute it as anyone else.
Well, plagiarism is a form of fraud, so I’d say it would be unethical.
I agree with this statement - for example, I’d count radio spectrum as a form of property we should respect, but only because it’s scarce. I don’t believe there can be any legitimate “ownership” of something that isn’t scarce, nor that anything should be made artificially scarce just so that it can be owned. I believe ownership is a way to address the problem of scarcity, not an end in itself.
It’s one fewer restriction on freedom of speech/press, and I’d say that’s a good thing in itself. It’d also become a lot easier to make derivative works, which means more works would be available to the public - I shake my head in frustration whenever I read a news story about how some movie or game won’t be made, or some piece of background music had to be changed, because of conflicts over licensing. It would just be so much simpler overall if people were simply allowed to use the information that’s available to them.
Personally? That’d depend on what they’re offering me. If the warranty, service contract, free toaster, or whatever else I’d get by buying the car is worth the price they’re asking–which of course would be less than cars cost today, since they could be mass-produced for nothing–I’d buy it. If not, I’d make my own copy.
How do you feel about movie reviewers? If I write a review of, say, Larry the Cable Guy’s new movie, and my opinion of the movie convinces a million people not to buy tickets or DVDs, am I not denying a million sales to the movie company?
How about lending DVDs… if my friend wants to buy a copy of The Matrix, and I invite him to come over and watch my copy instead, haven’t I denied a sale? If you’re looking to buy it too, and I sell you my copy on eBay so you don’t have to buy a new one from the store, haven’t I denied another sale? In fact, don’t libraries and video rental stores deny sales all the time by allowing people to use a copy that’s already been bought instead of buying a new copy from the manufacturer?
I think the movie companies would disagree, as shown by the fact that DVDs are made intentionally hard to copy, and that they’ve sued the makers of software intended for making personal backups of DVDs. They might say there’s already a way to protect your investment - buy a second copy.
Of course it is. If you buy a DVD, then lose it without making a backup, you’ll have to buy another copy, right? That’s an extra sale. If you had made a backup, they would’ve lost that extra sale. If they deserve the first sale, why don’t they also deserve the second one?
A person spends 2 years writing the great American novel. He self-publishes about 300 copies, and sells half of them. One of them gets into the hands of PublishCorp, who prints, misattributes and sells out, 15 editions of the novel, without giving the author a dime or credit. They make millions and win the Pultizer, while the author dies of hypothermia.
Princess FancyPants, a pop band of 13 year old girls in suburban Chicago, spend their hard earned paper route money to buy 1 hour of studio time, with which they record “LovePop”, which sells 10 copies, mostly to friends. One of the friends father’s sends it to LikeAVirgin Corp., which has Brittany Aguilerra record the song. With the Corporations’ contacts in the radio industyy, the song goes platinum in a matter of weeks, and makes Brittany and the record company 100 million dollars over a career that only has one hit.
Marvin Messageboard writes a short story that he posts on is private message board. The story, with very little alteration, gets turned into a two hour movie that grosses $1 million worldwide in theaters. Before the launch of the video, word of mouth about the movie spreads, and it starts to increase ticket sales. PirateCo., gets a copy of the film, immediately copies it, and dsitributes it over the internet to 100.000 people, who, in turn, copy it on their own and sell them. The movie, which would have grossed $600 million, nets the author nothing, the movie maker loses money, and the pirate Co. makes 599 million. No more movies get written, made, or distributed.
In each of these examples, I think a vast majority of people would agree that something unethical happened. When you include no rights for the inventors of new products, no protection for patentholders, and no financial incentive for medical companies, I think it’s not just being unethical, it’s being stupid. A capitalistic society that doesn’t protect intellectual properties will quickly become a society of leeches.
So simple scarcity determines property rights? And the ethical basis for that determination is? And what could get more scarce than a book, movie or song. No two are alike, and each is a completely original creation. Why would a $2 circular disk be of more value than The Godfather?
Again, I don’t follow you. I suppose it is more free to allow people to copy movies in their basement, but I don’t see how that is a “good thing in itself”.
Yeah, I miss my WKRP reruns too. But that doesn’t stop protection of intellectual property from, on the whole, being a good thing.
This is essentially the system in place in China when I lived there a few years back (I’m not sure to what degree it has changed since then, but I don’t think very much). Piracy was just absolutely rampant. If I wanted to buy a real copy of a movie or a computer game in Beijing at that time, I would have a very hard time saying where I’d go. However, if I wanted a pirated copy, I could tell you where to go: literally any street corner. In shopping areas, there would be anywhere from five or ten to as many as 50 guys with copied CDs, movies, or software selling them for about a buck each.
What was the result of this? Nobody went to movie theaters because they were more expensive. The Chinese software industry was a shambles because few companies could profit unless they had good connections to the government, in which case the government would make it clear that this software from this Chinese company was not to be pirated… but then, of course, the government would turn a blind eye to piracy of everything else.
And the Chinese movie industry? Uhhh… is there any? I think at the time, there were about two dozen honest-to-god Chinese movies made each year. Everything else was imported from Hong Kong, the US, and other countries. This was overwhelmingly because movie production counted on Chinese government subsidies, because few businessmen would be so stupid as to invest in a filming a movie that would be pirated and distributed on the first day it is released.
Welcome to the world in which creators of intellectual property cannot protect and profit from their works. It is a bleak world for creativity.
I’m astonished that this debate has gone on for pages. I read the thread’s title and thought, “Duh! Of course it is unethical and illegal.” I can’t believe that some have deluded themselves into thinking that by copying a DVD they don’t own they are not behaving unethically.
The argument “I’d never rent it agin, so the video store doesn’t lose anything” is totally bogus. Of course you’ll never rent it again if you have a copy. If you don’t have a copy, your options are to 1) rent or buy it or 2) not watch it. You don’t have the right to watch it whenever you want if you haven’t bought it!
The whole idea strikes me as self evident and un-debatable.
Honestly reviewing a movie is an honest form of free speech. Indeed movie reviews are creative works. It’s a persuasive form of expression. It is in no way, shape, or form similar to the physical process of replicating the content of a DVD in order to not have to purchase the DVD. You’re grasping at straws.
When you lend it or sell it, that copy is no longer in your possession. You can’t watch your copy once you’ve lent it or sold it, therefore there’s no sale denied. I know you’re not particularly concerned with the law, but if you care to know more about the reasoning for this, search for the “right of first sale” or “first sale doctrine.”