Morality of Downloading Music

Great Debates
81

Huh?
Huh?

What the hell are you blathering about? What is this convoluted spin you’re got going?

When two entities compete with each other, they keep the profits they earn from their own businesses. If one entity loses income because of the competition, that’s the breaks, and that’s also the nature of competition.

Oh. So you’re saying that Sting will no longer make very much money off of his work.

Not because he wants to, but because he will have no choice. And apparently you think this is great.

I think he’ll probably end up going back to teaching then.

A lot of artists, artists who are not now making a fraction of what Sting makes, will make next to nothing if they were no longer “entitled” to profits. So what will they do? Very likely they will not consider it “profitable” to continue to sell their works. They may still create the works, but they won’t sell them.

Many a time I’ve said to myself (or heard some fellow artist say), “I will never sell this. I would never get what it was worth.” Artists do this now. And you think it’ll get better if laws are changed in the way you want?

When artists won’t and can’t get what they think their work is worth, they simply will withhold it. They’ll do something else for a living.

Bottom line for you: Less artwork, music, and writing for you to enjoy.

These people had rich “benefactors” who bankrolled their work, and often “commissioned” them to do specific works.

And bear in mind, these were in the days before file sharing, digital recording, inexpensive printing, and so forth.

Benefactors paid the artists money and usually got a specific work in return. (I doubt that the artist got to do whatever the muses told them to do in exchange for all the money every time.) And when the artist did the work, the concept of “all rights” had a vastly different meaning than it does today. Methods of distribution and reproduction were far, far more limited than they were today.

Some artists were “bankrolled” by family (Van Gogh, for instance). And we can see what a lovely life he had. And we can imagine how few people today would be willing to bankroll their “deadbeat artist” relatives today, if indeed there would be not much promise of “profits” from their work down the line.

A whole lot of people who do “part time” creative work simply will STOP releasing it to the public. What will be their motivation to release it if they can’t have “all rights” to it? People already know what “all rights” are, and they know that for many years, artists were entitled to “all rights.” If all of a sudden “all rights” were taken away, do you think that these creative folk would all of a sudden just accept it without resentment?

Bloody hell, no. They’d very likely withhold their work. Why give up “all rights” so cheaply?

You seem to think that artists will take such changes without changing their habits. Trust me: they’d change their attitudes damned quickly. Most creative folks have done other jobs in their lives (like Sting being a school teacher) and I daresay that a lot of them would rather return to that than to give up “all rights” of their creative works.

82

What is morality? Now there’s a subject for multiple Ph.D.'s.

I’m not an ethicist, but broadly speaking, there seem to be two kinds of morality:

  1. The morality determined by an individual.
  2. The morality determined by society.

Both types interact and influence the development of each other.

(This is relevant - you’ll see where I’m going in a sec.)

With type 2, we get a sort of “loose consensus” and it is this loose consensus which often heavily influences legislature. Whilst legality is certainly not equivalent to morality, there remains a correlation, of sorts.

For example, here in the UK, less and less people consider homosexuality to be immoral. With the change in public opinion of morality, there has been a change in law. (More people lobby for a change in the law in favour of homosecual activity. More pressure on politicians ultimately results in statute changes.)

Often, the decision, “what is moral?” is determined by reference to “what is good?” That’s sort of a circular reasoning process, but semantically it helps, when we ask the question: “What is good for society?”

I presuppose that art is good for society.

Therefore, enabling people to make a living from art (releasing them from the burdens of other forms of employment) is also good for society. The single most important legal concept enabling artists to make this living is copyright. Copyright therefore acts for the good of society.

This is straight-line reasoning, I know - I’m missing out debates about enforcement, and precise definitions of the scope of copyright.

Anyway, illegally copying software, patents, music, fine art, trademarks and music - these are all breaches of copyright. Breaches of copyright act against the spirit of copyright being good for society.

A minor infringement (downloading one song) may not have any discernible detrimental effect on society, but we are talking here about mutiple infringements.

Consider this example:

I am lying on the ground, unable to move. Every other human on the planet walks past me and deposits one grain of sand on me. Eventually, I am buried alive.

Which (if any) of those humans committed an immoral act?

I would say that breach of copyright is immoral, but not in as morally offensive a way as murder. Many people who download music express a very small issue of conscience - but that is small enough to ignore.

83

The problem with your statement here is that there are so many definitions of copyright.

The founding fathers wanted copyrights to last for a few decades at most, short enough that people who were alive when the work was new would still be alive when it entered the public domain. Some groups today want copyright to last for over a century, long enough that works will be ancient relics by the time they enter the public domain, useful only to historians.

Some people think copyright should only protect the author from commercial copying; others think it should protect them not just from commercial and noncommercial copying, but also from similar works (e.g. using someone else’s characters in your own novel).

I believe the morality of copying someone else’s work is unrelated to the state of the law; copying a 50 year old book without the author’s permission is either moral or immoral, whether the copyright term is 10 years or 100 years. Thus we can’t say “breaking copyright is wrong because copyright is necessary” and just let the legislature decide what “copyright” means.

84

And what is the relevance of this? Are you arguing that this is grounds for morally censuring downloading or grounds for morally endorsing downloading? If it is neutral then why mention it?

Legally that is not in dispute, but what relevance does this have to the current debate? You have lost me completely now.

I am completely indifferent to the labels. I can’t answer your question under board rules, and you really shouldn’t have asked. You will need to use your imagination. :smiley:

We have long since established that depriving others of their property is immoral. Can you please stop mentioning property theft as though its morality were somehow in contention. It is a somewhat irritating strawman. Property theft is immoral.

However property theft deprives another of their property. After a file is downloaded the ‘victim’ still has all the same property, so how is that theft?

This is yet another form of the morality=legality argument, and we can apply the argument to witchburning as well. Being a witch is illegal and punishable by burning to death. People should be free to decide for themselves whether they are comfortable with their actions. If some 12 year old girl gets burned for her activities, then I would assume that nobody would whine or have any problems with this.

Well of course we would. Just because a law dictates that there are undesirable consequences inflicted for an actions, that does not make the act immoral, nor does it make the law moral.

I note Daisycutter that you never answered many of my questions, especially how something can be theft when the victim has exactly the same intellectual possessions after the act as before. Nor did you explain what point you were making with the downloading -à loss of quality argument.

Of course I will. Such an act will deprive me of property. Moreover it will deprive me of property which was never made publicly available. Such an act is indisputably immoral.

85

Thank you for being insulting.

Nonetheless I think it is apparent to all that you have still refused to answer my question. We can draw our own conclusions regarding the tenability of you from that.

Oh, and Yosemitebabe while you are avoiding answering my questions, would you care to make an attempt at not answering this one as well? :smiley:
Which of those societies do you believe is better? Are you prepared to say that it is better to curtail freedoms than risk an unknowable but potential rise in prices for luxury items?

Insofar as you have no choice and the busboy at my favorite restauraunt has no choice and every other person on this country has no choice, yes. Like me and you and the busboy he can obtain exactly as much money form his products and services as the market will sand. If that is having no choice then sure, he no choice.

Do I now?

Who knows. A lot of busboys make next to nothing for their services. That does not make it immoral.

I believe I have already answered this an all our other questions. If only you could answer mine we might believe that your position was equally supportable.

Either that or they will adjust their value to meet the market. In other words they wil act exactly like carpenters do? Or teachers, or nuclear physicists or every other occupation besides artists? You do realise that don’t you? If I offer a carpenter $500 to make me a new set of stairs and he thinks that the work is worth $1000 he simply withholds. If no one will offer him,$1000 he either lowers his prices or does something else for a living.
Are you suggesting that his state of affairs, which is the very basis of our free-market capitalist economy, is immoral? (Another question you can avoid answering.)

And your point would be what? That people like Michaelangelo with rich benefactors didn’t produce great art? If that isn’t your point then why would it be so terrible if we reverted to that system?
And Shakespeare and all 1823 music hall composers had a rich benefactor. I’d like to see a reference supporting that assertion. I think you are promulgating ignorance of the highest order Yosemitebabe

The money they make from the sales?

If a of a sudden the southern gentleman’s right to own slaves was taken away, do you think that these gentle folk would all of a sudden just accept it without resentment?

No of course they wouldn’t. What the hell has that got to do with the morality of depriving them of that right?

Do I? I would have thought that stating that Sting will either go back to teaching or start making a crust flogging CDs at concerts was a fair indication to anyone who could read that I don’t believe any such thing.

And this relates to morality how exactly? Come to that what does any of your post have to do with morality? You have posted tirade about how horrible it would be if artists had to accept market value for what they produce. You refuse to answer direct questions. This isn’t a debate Yosemitebabe, you are ranting.

86

I reject that out of hand. By this argument morality changes with the seasons. Burning a 12 year old girl to death can be moral if society deems it so. I know that many people do subscribe to such moral relativism, or at least claim too, but I do not believe that any such relativistic morality has any meaning. It’s like referring to a relativistic value of truth.

I must also point out Blink that you omitted the third major type of morality, and I believe the one that most people here are striving for: logical morality or just morality. Such morality is not determined by the individual except at fine scales, nor is it determined by society and changeable.

Is it? Can we see a reference for that? Do you have any control groups where there is no copyright and a concommittant decrease in artists? Because if you don’t then I can’t just accept what you say, and as such the argument you construct form this is without basis.

87

Whilst I would personally take the same stance as you about this, the fact remains that the majority of the population at least of my country, seem to subscribe to a relativistic (i.e. changeable) moral framework. I would love it if everybody would accept that there are moral absolutes, but not everybody does. Hence, we have to deal with relative morality, like it or not.

Of course it is very difficult to determine what falls into this absolute set of morals.

But the fact remains that individuals and societies make their decisions about what is moral, and base their choices accordingly. It is very good and desireable to investigate the concept of absolute morality, but in truth no human being possesses absolute morality. We all have a conscience. We all make different choices. Or the same choices, but for subtly different reasons. We may be striving to find an absolute moral code, but the one that we will inevitably apply in our own lives will be a subjective interpretation of that code. (Prove to me you are wholly without bais if you like.)

I am sorry - this is a little off-topic. Back to the point: the morality of downloading music is one instance I am sure where you will find it difficult - if not impossible - to find a moral absolute. Hence why I couched my original comments in relative (changeable) terms.

I was hoping that it would be self-evident that if people were not guaranteed some level of legal protection for their artisitic efforts, that there would be less overall inclination to be creative (and also less opportunity, since we all must eat, earning that money one way or another). The prospect of financial reward certainly helps motivate creativity - or are you saying it doesn’t?!

Mind you, I accept the point that you are perhaps implying: copyright is not the only viable method for ensuring artists’ remuneration. Still, it is a method that has grown in reponse to societies’ needs. Perhaps it has not grown organically, or with much reference to a rigourous examination of all possible alternatives, but I do think there is a moral link (however tenuous) between copyright and the intended promotion of art for the good of society.

88

You’re welcome. :rolleyes:

Well, at the risk of offending your obviously delicate sensibilities, I can’t figure out what the hell your question is. I thought I’d answered it. But if you think I didn’t—fine. Whatever, dude. Go ahead and continue to claim that I didn’t answer it to your satisfaction. And continue to imply that this “means” something (other than you are being completely incomprehensible to me).

Whatever.

To “curtail” whose freedoms? The artists’ “freedom” to retain rights to their sole works? The sweat of their brows? The manifestation of their skills and training?

OK, then, fine. So being an artist or composer becomes suddenly less profitable, and also runs the risk of seeing one’s creative work adapted or screwed up in some way that is aesthetically displeasing (or downright offensive) to the artist. So the artist decides it’s “not worth it.” A lot of artists invariably would decide this. Hell—it’s hard enough to make a decent living off of anything creative now. And you just want things to be more unappealing to the artist?

Sure sounds like it.

And it doesn’t make it immoral if teachers get paid shit so a lot of people don’t want to be teachers anymore, does it? So there’s a teacher shortage going on. And if it becomes “unprofitable” to be an artist or a composer, a lot of people won’t be doing that as much either. Nothing “immoral” about it, but I wouldn’t exactly call it “preferable.”

Well, it would help if you were comprehensible.

And how do “publishing rights” figure out in all of this? If copies are free for the taking and anyone can publish anything that an artist does, then who will want to pay the artist for the “rights”? They can’t really get “rights” to a work that can be immediately copied and distributed anywhere and everywhere.

And in the case of big-budget movies, who will pay back the filmmakers for all the money they invested getting the film made? As soon as a print is released to one movie house, that film could be reproduced at a photo lab and every theatre in town could show it. DVDs could be made immediately. It could be downloaded onto the Internet. How will the filmmakers get their money back? Who will pay them what it was worth to make it, if no one entity will be able to hold onto the exclusive rights to distribute that film long enough to make very much money?

That fewer people were commissioning these artists, that fewer people were able to “afford” to admire these artworks (no way to make cheap prints), and that these artworks were not being mass-reproduced on CDs, DVDs and distributed on the Internet.

You do realize that things are a bit different now, don’t you? Things are so much easier to publish and distribute now. Most artists don’t want to sit back and sell a copy of their work and see it distributed hither and yon, without any input as to how it is to be used, and where it is going to end up. A lot more possibilities for profit and for distribution exist today than existed back in Michaelangelo’s time, and modern artists know this. As do art buyers.

What sales? The minute a copy of the work hits the streets, a jillion different copies can be made, and distributed everywhere, and sold by any street vendor. And distributed on the Internet for free.

What?

Who exactly are the “slaves” in your bizarre analogy? And who are you calling “Southern Gentlemen”?

You made a statement about artists not being “morally” entitled to profits, I’m asking you to explain it. That’s simply it.

89

*Originally posted by Blake *
**Of course I will. Such an act will deprive me of property. Moreover it will deprive me of property which was never made publicly available. Such an act is indisputably immoral. **

See, the reason why I bowed out of this morality debate, is that they can go on for 100 pages, and still reach no conclusion, but I have to get one last answer in, and I will show how it is not immoral for me (if I were the artist) to wipe your drive. Anybody can basically make a justification for almost anything, which is why it is silly to read justifications for illegal filesharing.

*Regarding the wiping of your drive: * (I’m basing this on how I view your moral system) In this example, I am the artist, and you are the illegal downloader.

How will such an act deprive you of property ? Exactly which property do you mean ? If intellectual property has no value, which is how you view things, then you have lost nothing of value, and have no case. Why would your 1’s and 0’s on your drive be anymore worth than the 1’s and 0’s in my mp3 file which you downloaded, and failed to compensate me for ? If I have wiped your drive of something which has no value, then I fail to see how this is morally wrong. Your harddrive is still there, and it is still physically intact. No data has exited your harddrive to somewhere else.

You have deprived me of money when you downloaded my tune against my will, and I have simply rearranged a few ones and zeros on your drive, against your will. Sounds like a fair barter, imo. That your intention was never to make your ones and zeros publicly available is irrelevant, as you didn’t respect my intentions, when you illegaly downloaded my ones and zeros. Also, many songs which are shared on the net, have not been made publicly available. A good example of this is the sharing of albums before they are even released for sale.

Even if I was found guilty of wiping your drive, a fair compensation to you would be if I wrote you a check for $ 0.00, which is how much the stuff on your drive is worth, based on your system of values.

Now, of course you will reply back, and tell me how am I wrong etc., but at the end of the day, the outcome of this debate hardly matters. What matters is the real world, and in that world, illegal downloaders will only be facing more trouble in the future, and that’s all that really counts.

:smiley:

90

Blake I think you missed the point of everything I said. Let me try and rephrase.

Yes it has a direct bearing on your argument. Not having any intellectual property gives me 0 say in how many copies of my book will be created. And that certainly will impinge on my ability to profit from it. I realize it is a little circular, so don’t get sidetracked into thinking I am arguing a legal=moral point. I am not.

The point being that if I have a right to profit by my labors, and if my labors produce intellectual property instead of physical property, then I should have a right to profit by that intellectual property. In the case of intellectual property, however (due to ites “vague and nebulous” nature), I cannot make a profit if everyone is free to reproduce EXACTLY my work for free.

You see, a moral justification, not one you agree with, I assume, but it does address the point.

Exactly my point. Moving into your office was meant as an analogy to copying intellectual property. It was meant to demonstrate the similarities between stealing (taking over a building one did not create) and copying (reproducing a work one did not create).

Ah, but you did. You said they have no moral right to own the intellectual property contained in their works. And you seemed to extend this to include trivial ideas such as moving tractors to a town where they had not been before. I was merely trying to turn it around in your direction. Actually, I was half kidding (note the smiley). But let me expound on the other half.

If you have an idea as part of your work. One that is directly related to your job, what moral right do you claim that allows you to accept your paycheck? Doesn’t your boss have every right to use the idea without paying you? It seems to me that you are arguing that he should be able to.

BTWDon’t get cought up in the difficulty of copying your ideas. Assume that as soon as you have them the boss can see them for this.

Also, Note that I am using your characterization of intellectual property as any idea whatsoever here. I think intellectual property has a more stringent definition. But if you are correct, and there is no moral ownership of intellectual property and that phrase can be expanded to include all ideas, then stealing your intellectual labor simply becomes an engineering problem. Yes?

Just a note. You see here how your concept of “public” removes my ability to profit from my book (go back to the begining where I said you agreed I had such a right). If I sell a copy of my book, and I put on it a copyright with the phrase all rights reserved, then you buying that book amounts to you agreeing to that limitation. That is, you have certain rights to fair use of it, but you do not have the right to copy the entire volume and distribute to everyone on the planet. I’m not forcing you to pay for the book. All I am “forcing” you to do is respect my property. If you don’t think I have the right to charge for my book, then don’t buy it. But that does not give you the right to steal it.

I have only repeated myself once, but I’m having fun, so I will do it again.

Intellectual property exists and is owned by those that create it. Copyright laws exist to protect this type of property from theft. That is the moral justification. Everything else is understanding the nature of intellectual property.

You might wander aournd this site for a while It has an incredible amount of information about what intellectual property is. As in:

Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce.

Hope this helps :slight_smile:

91

I have another question for Blake. If your definition of theft requires the loss of real material property from the owner, then how is trespassing imoral?

If I break into your house to drink a beer and watch some TV, what moral am I violating? Assuming I brought the beer myself, and lets even expand it to include a battery I brought myself to power the TV. As long as I do it while you are out anyway and don’t move anything while I’m there, what’s the harm?

What if I justify my invasion by saying that I am “sampling” the new TV you bought? Does that help?

:slight_smile: joke :slight_smile:
If you really believe that theft only involves depriving you of material property, why don’t you publish your address and some hours that you will be away from home?
:slight_smile: Joke :slight_smile:

No, Really, that last part was a joke do not under any circumstances follow that advice.

I know I’m going to get in trouble for it anyway:smack:

92

I’ve already answered it. If you can’t understand how this is not stealing then try this. Go to the local music store with a laptop, take a cd out of the package, burn it and then put it back on the shelf. Now explain to the manager that you did not steal it, as they have the original. Maybe that will help.

Your problem here is you are making two assumptions that are plainly incorrect. Legality does not equate to morality in every case, and stealing does in fact include duplicating artist creations.

So you see nothing wrong with people passing themselves off as others, so long as no one is hurt. So I could go to a bar, say I am you, and pick up someone? You’re not hurt.

No it is not. Your missed the basis of the arguement once again. The idea is that a) the work is coopyrighted and as such, it is illegal to copy it, and b) the artists has expressed their desire that the work NOT be duplicated without their permission. Doing so now is morally wrong as well as it goes against the wishes of the artist who created it. The legal and moral issue is seperate and distinct, despite your conjucture otherwise. Someone asks you to not do something and you go ahead and do it anyway is morally wrong (in THIS case). Why don’t you see that? I’ve stated it numerous times, it should be understandable, yet you continue to say that it is not.

You really want me to explain why it is morally wrong for me to take something you created and claim that it is mine? That’s morally ok to do so? I think the better question is why you would think that is the moral thing to do. I think your idea of morals is a bit vague.

No, I think you are fixted on the idea that it is not stealing as long as the original work exists. That’s incorrect. You can steal the properties of the work without physical possesion.

That is a most convoluted arguement, and has nothing to do with this issue. I PAID for a house but it is not mine? The artist here in creates a work and has possesion of it and you make a free and illegal copy of it. How does this equate to the above argument? The facts have changed to an outlandish degree to support your arguement that it is now unfeasible.

93

I may be a bit too late to comment on the original post, but here is my 2 cents:

As was mentioned before, people deserve compensation for their work. Intellectual properties are products of the collective efforts of many individuals who should be paid.

The loss of revenue due to piracy is not necessarily greater than the cost of protecting against it. Piracy also has the effect of producing a greater exposure for the pirated product.

In the information age, we demand more choices for our entertainment. If the legitimate means of acquiring it is too expensive or too inconvenient, piracy come into play. It is up to the companies to adapt to the new environment or fail.

File sharing as it as currently implemented has several shortcomings. The quality of the files are inconsistent and the search function can only help you find things if you already know the performer or title.

I think people would be willing to pay a fee if they could get consistently high quality files. A Tivo-like feature that could recommend new bands or titles based on your habits would be helpful in marketing new artists.

From a moral standpoint, I think file sharing is like shareware. Because it is (initially) free, one is more likely to try something that he/she wouldn’t even look at in a store. If a person enjoys a particular item, he/she should probably pay for it. Unfortunately, this may not always be practical. I don’t think one should be forced to pay $13.95 for a CD with 1 good song.

94

Yes, we can. If you understand the concept of intellectual property then you know that its ownership is something worthy of state protection. Then the only question is what is the proper way to define that state protection. We have a constitutionaly provision (and more recently a Supreme Court decision) which gives that power to congress. You are free to lobby for constitutional changes, bring suits to change the interpretation, or even to lobby congress to change how it is using that power. But you do not have the power to ignore whatever the current legislation says.

even sven suggested that downloading music could be interpreted as civil disobedience to the current copyright laws. I think that is an interesting suggestion. However, in order to be honest, you can’t simply download the latest britany spears tracks. You would need to limit your choices to files which should (according to you) be public domain by now. That is, if you think the limit should be 14 years, you should only download music created more than 14 years ago. The point being that you agree with the concept of intellectual property, but disagree with the way it is currently legislated.

Of course, you could take Blake’s view and deny that any sort of intellectual property rights exist at all. However, you would need to apply that to yourself and surrender any and all soverienty over you own ideas. :smiley:

95

Well, to get more specific about my beliefs…

I believe that our government has failed at it’s job. The money trail isn’t a long one, and leads directly from the major entertainment corporations to the legislators that pass the laws that the entertainment corporations draft- laws which work towards the detriment of art and our nation as a whole. Unfortunatly, I believe the system is so corrupt and perverted that there is no way to fight it. The entertainment industry has nearly limitless wealth, and the pro-public domain contingent (who are not primarily in the business of ammassing more wealth, nor pocessing the ability to sway public opinion on a massive level) does not have the kind of money and propaganda power it takes to fight this one.

The only thing I can see to do is to seek to sabotage, undermine and neutralize the entertainment industry. Although I personally do not do these acts, I feel it is my duty to support those that do. Among those people are the ones that spend countless hours and endless creativity (unpaid, I might add) creating file sharing systems, reverse engineering copyright protection measures and generally outsmarting and outwitting the entertainment’s industry to copyright everything up to the thoughts in our head.

Let me say this clearly. The industry must be checked. Right now they can basically create their own laws. They have frozen the public domain for decades. And when those decades are up, don’t think they arn’t going to try to freeze it again. They have made it illegal to sing the songs from our childhood in public. They have made it illegal to grow plants from cuttings. They have made it illegal to photograph a specific tree. They have made it illegal to write stories using character that are seventy years old. They have made it illegal to reverse engineer- that is to look at something and figure out how it was made. They have made a certain number illegal to write down.

And it will get worse. Their proposals, even now, have entered the world of the absurd. They are questioning wether it ought to be legal to sell a used compact disc or book. They want to restrict what kinds of computers can be manufactured. They want to ability to decide what kinds of technology get developed and which ones don’t. They will not stop until every snatch of song, every group of words, even the things we see with our eyes and maybe the things we think in our heads are in private hands for perpetuity.

Our only protection against this are the techno-anarchists that are building the framework and learning the fobidden knowledge that we may one day need just to sing a song in the shower without shelling out royalties. So I feel I must support their efforts, and one of the ways to do this is to share on file-sharing networks. It’s a little more confrontational (and dangerous) than straightforward civil disobeidience, but I believe it is essential to our intellectual and artistic future.

96

Which does not make it correct. This is just an agumentem a populum.

Such an premise is not self evident at all. By this argument people were less inclined to be creative before the existence of copyright laws, and by extension Leonardo da Vinci and William Shakespeare were less creative than people alive today. Considering the volume, scope and quality of the work those two men produced I say such an premise is bunkum. It is certainly baseless.

It does, but so do many other things. The prospect of financial reward also stifles creativity, as wany fan complaining of their favorite group ‘selling out’ will tell you. As such you cannot use the presence or absence of financial reward to support your case without some sort of evidence on the overall impact.

You can of course think that, but you have not come close to establishing it.

97

Look at the thread title: Morality of Downloading Music. You’re talking about legality. Unless you believe that breaking the law is inherently immoral, the state of copyright law has no bearing on the morality of violating copyright.

Of course I have the power to ignore copyright. Millions of people do it every day.

Am I legally justified in ignoring copyright? No.

Am I morally justified in ignoring copyright? Well, that’s what this thread is about.

I don’t see how the legality of violating copyright has anything to do with the morality of it. Either copying a particular work without the author’s permission is moral, or it isn’t, regardless of what the law says.

98

Yosemitebabe that is the only thing you posted in that rant that has any bearing on the current debate. And you will get no dispute form me in that point. There is nothing immoral about filesharing.

Until you answer my questions I will not feel any need address you further. You are being disingenuous and there is no onus on me to engage in discourse with such a person

I have never at any stage said that intellectual property has no value. That is blatant strawman. Since your entire argument is based on this lie, we can disregard that your entire argument.

That aside, you seem to be incapable of understanding a very basic concept Daisy Cutter, and I have posted it time and time and time again, and you have read it time and time and time again. But I will do so one last time. Can you please answer these questions?

Do you understand that when I download a file, the ‘victim’ still has exactly the same property after the act as before? Do you understand that they still have the information in their brain and the same 1 and 0s on their hard drive? So how can that be theft?
Do you understand that if you wipe my hard drive I don’t have exactly the same property after the act as before? Do you understand that they still have the information in their brain and the same 1 and 0s on their hard drive? So how can that be moral?

Geez, it’s a simple enough concept. It’s immoral if I deprive you of anything without an overriding moral principle. That applies to chicken on a plate or data on a hard drive. I am surprised that you Mother never taught you that.

99

I agree with you that the copyright expansionists have gone WAY too far. And I think that their most agregious tyrany is the attempt to prohibit the investigation of encryption technology. The people investigating advances in encryption and encryption breaking are worthy of support. And I try to support them as I am able.

However, this OP is about music downloading. I don’t think using kazaa to obtain or distribute works that you believe are owned by others is going to effect the changes you want.

100

No argument there. Would you also agree that a carpenter has a right to profit form making stairs.

If you can’t make a profit then you can’t make a profit. Having a right to do something does not does not mean that you have the ability to do something. You seem to be conflating the two concepts. A carpenter has a right to make a profit form building stairs. If he doesn’t have the ability to make a profit in building stairs for whatever reason then that’s unfortunate. He still retains the right. Same with intellectual property. You have a right to make a profit from intellectual property, but if you can’t for whatever reason that’s unfortunate. You still retain the right.

Because a garanteed right=/= a garaunteed ability there is no moral dimension to your argument as presented.

If that was the intention it failed, because you have demonstrated no such similarity. If you take over my office I no longer have that part of that office that you are occupying. You have deprived me of property. If I reproduce a work you still have free access to everything that you started with. While there may be similarities (there are between most things) there is no similarity in the pertinent area ie deprivation. A such it’s an obvious false analogy (http://datanation.com/fallacies/falsean.htm) and logically invalid.

Then please quote where I said this rather than simply asserting yet again that I said it. Until you do that then we have no common grounds for discussion on this point. I deny ever making such a claim and accuse you of constructing a strawman. If you cannot quote where I said then please do not accuse me of saying this again.

No of course not because I have a signed contract with my employer that says I get payed a salary for engaging in certain duties. Those duties include solving problems etc. The only way he could not pay me for the time spent producing that idea is to welch on t contract.

Circular reasoning. You are stating your desired conclusion (that downloading is immoral because it is theft and/or because you have a moral right to reserve/restrict my rights) as a premise for accepting that conclusion (that you have a moral right to fair use/downloading is theft and therefore immoral). This is not a valid debating tactic and it clearly establishes nothing.

More of the same circular reasoning. You are stating your desired conclusion (that downloading is immoral because it is theft ) as a premise for accepting that conclusion (downloading is theft and therefore immoral). I think everyone can see that this is circular reasoning and logically as valid as saying that birds can’t fly because they have no wings and that you have proved it by establishing that birds have no wings because if they had wings they would fly.

Trespassing is not theft and is not based upon the same moral precept as theft. You are attempting to use the logical fallacy of composition. (http://datanation.com/fallacies/compos.htm). Because theft is one immoral act, and is defined by deprivation of property, that does not mean that all immoral acts have to meet that definition.