It’s true that DeCSS is made illegal under a different law; however, all the methods used by the DeCSS Gallery to conceal the source code could just as easily be used to conceal an MP3 (or even the dreaded 273 ;)). You could make a 10MB JPEG which appears to be a high-resolution scan of the Declaration of Independence, but actually contains a song, hidden in the lower order bits of each pixel.
I believe it’s moral because I believe 1) everything that isn’t immoral is moral, 2) it isn’t immoral to copy someone’s work noncommercially.
I suspect we have different definitions of “the right to the fruits of their own labor”. IMO, that right is satisfied by letting an author exploit his own work for profit.
I think youmay be right. The primary sticking point may simply be profit. Can you give a reason why distibuting a copy of someone else’s book to everyon on earth would be ok if I did not make a profit, but not ok if I did?
Another question that comes to mind is: What, in this context do you mean by “profit”? Are you talking about strictly monetary profit? Do you limit the term to mean monies in exess of costs?
I am truly curious about your justifications for these views. As I understand it, if I made copies of software you wrote, for instance, and delivered a copy to every man woman and child on the planet, then that would be ok. But if I asked for a penny from each of them, or a penny from them collectively, then I would be violating <what>?
Yes. None of which makes the picture within which an MP3 is “concealed” illegal. Just as normal uses of 273 could not be illegal becasue Cage did not create 273, uses of images of the Declaration of Independance to “conceal” an MP3 would not make the Declaration of Independance illegal. If I copy someone’s book and distribute it without permision, No one will claim that the author is trying to make paper illegal, or writing, or the english language simply by sueing me.
To me the question of morality in this issue is not of paramount importance. Lawmakers like to make it seem like we’re sending the artists to the poor house, but haven’t they been taking exorbitant sums out of our pockets for years? From a consumer standpoint I’m not sure it’s so wrong to take an “us vs them” mentality, particularly when the industry you’re sponsoring with your paycheck has a long history of overcharging for their product.
Secondly, it’s not necessarily a cut & dry issue: if it werent for the popularity of bootlegs, for example, you wouldn’t have an entire tour worth of Pearl Jam shows to choose from. I also agree with the “tape trader” argument that, like back in the analog days, if a friend buys an album you were intrigued by you tended to make a copy and checked it out, then if you liked it you would eventually buy your own. Certainly there are those that are content to sponge off these public MP3 offerings without ever buying a CD, but most of us get tired of seeing huge mounds of easily scratched CD-Rs sitting around the house.
Finally, I think it’s up to the industry, not the lawmakers or purchasers, to come up with a solution on behalf of the artists. For instance, bars have started stocking “MP3 jukeboxes” where you can download virtually anything you want (for a price, that is). I’m assuming the artists are getting a piece of this action, but then if the truth were actually told the artists are getting ripped off by their record labels far more so than by their fans.