Morality and downloading

[Thumpalumpacus]

Because it is taking the product of someone's labor without compensating them for it.

And why is this unethical?  What is it that gives the creator of a collection of ideas or sounds the right to tell others what to do with them after they have been released into the public sphere?

Well, "rights" are a matter of law, not ethics, but since you asked, the copyright laws extant here and elsewhere give artists the right to determine usage by selling licenses.

But the reason why taking their output without compensation is unethical is because you're depriving them of the ability to benefit from their own labors.

I'd contend that particularly with very popular music, enough is enough.  Metallica, for example, isn't just a bunch of guys trying to sell new songs-- they are a part of American history and culture, and their names will be writ large long after they are dead and gone.  Am I really going to go to hell because I downloaded albums I've already bought several times along with a couple I've never bought?

Ah, so it is okay to steal from someone based on what they already have? I disagree, and I suspect you do, too.  After all, by your logic, a homeless person is perfectly entitled to the contents of your wallet based on the fact that you will still live, and you are better-off than he is. You have food and a car and a comfortable home. You have no reason to complain when he robs you, right?

As for downloading albums you've already bought, I've got no problem with that.  Indeed, I think that if the medium of the CD/LP/cassette is damaged, then the buyer should be entitled to a free replacement, because what has been bought was a license.

You are not considering the balance of rights and fair use.  For example, don't people have a right to share their own experiences, even when those experiences involve the intellectual products of others?  If I have a video of my teenage self thrashing to Metallica when I still had long hair, should Youtube unplug the audio because Metallica's lawyers' lawyers' minions are pissed that I didn't arrange a license?

That depends.  Did you arrange permission to use their music in your money-making venture? Or do you not sell ad-space on your channel? If you are using their music for personal gain without permission and are not paying royalty, their lawyers may have a case.  But -- I don't believe you'll be going to Hell.  

I'm only mentioning the law because you insist on bringing it into the discussion. My point was based on the ethics of taking from another person the right to make a living with the products of their own labor. Copyright laws are in place because that principle is widely accepted.

I think that just because someone has been successful doing so doesn't mean that their product should thenceforth be regarded as public domain. Robin Hood was a fairy tale. People who illegally download invoke mega-successful acts as if that changes the nature of their pirating, but it doesn't. Whether the guy you stick up is rich or poor, you're still committing robbery.

[bennyboy]

I'd contend that particularly with very popular music, enough is enough.  Metallica, for example, isn't just a bunch of guys trying to sell new songs-- they are a part of American history and culture, and their names will be writ large long after they are dead and gone.  Am I really going to go to hell because I downloaded albums I've already bought several times along with a couple I've never bought?

Ah, so it is okay to steal from someone based on what they already have? I disagree, and I suspect you do, too.  After all, by your logic, a homeless person is perfectly entitled to the contents of your wallet based on the fact that you will still live, and you are better-off than he is. You have food and a car and a comfortable home. You have no reason to complain when he robs you, right?

I don't think this is what I'm saying. I'm not talking about Metallica's wealth. I'm talking about the transition of normal musicians to cultural gods. Once an artist becomes an integral part of the fabric of a culture, I think normal members of that culture should have a right to access the music/art/whatever. This is not a legal opinion, or maybe even a popular one, but it's how I see it. I could go even farther and say that since giant media firms are manipulating my environment: controlling what's on the radio or MTV, advertising in such a way that I cannot avoid the advertisement, etc., that they are instituting a contract under duress. I could buy every album I wanted, to be frank, but I don't think it's fair both for corporations to control the cultural experience of a human being and to extract payment from him when he attempts to participate fully in that culture. That's not a far stretch from how drug dealers operate.

You are not considering the balance of rights and fair use.  For example, don't people have a right to share their own experiences, even when those experiences involve the intellectual products of others?  If I have a video of my teenage self thrashing to Metallica when I still had long hair, should Youtube unplug the audio because Metallica's lawyers' lawyers' minions are pissed that I didn't arrange a license?

That depends.  Did you arrange permission to use their music in your money-making venture? Or do you not sell ad-space on your channel? If you are using their music for personal gain without permission and are not paying royalty, their lawyers may have a case.  But -- I don't believe you'll be going to Hell.  

Okay, that's different. I think by selling, I become an agent of the artist or property holder, and I implicitly accept whatever conditions they might place on the content.

I'm only mentioning the law because you insist on bringing it into the discussion. My point was based on the ethics of taking from another person the right to make a living with the products of their own labor. Copyright laws are in place because that principle is widely accepted.

I think that just because someone has been successful doing so doesn't mean that their product should thenceforth be regarded as public domain. Robin Hood was a fairy tale. People who illegally download invoke mega-successful acts as if that changes the nature of their pirating, but it doesn't. Whether the guy you stick up is rich or poor, you're still committing robbery.

Okay, you kind of answered my previous comment, but let me say I disagree. Let's say I'm writing a book about my life, and in my life, I drank a Coke. I'm supposed to identify it as Coke™, which would ruin the flow of the book. That notwithstanding, I'm supposed to appeal to the Coca-cola company for approval-- which they would deny, or for which I'd have to sell my corporate soul.

Legally, they have me: the logo and name are the intellectual property of the company. But I disagree with this law, the principle, and its execution at all levels. Coke is so well-known that it is simply a word.

[The Grand Nudger]

Another issue would be this-- is it immoral to disobey a law that doesn't represent the interests of the majority?  

I don't think so, no (but I don't think that legality has to toe the line /w morality).   Something tells me, of course, that I won't be able to mount a competent "moral defense" if I'm ever hauled in on charges.

[IATIA]

So, if I enter someone's domain and erase all of their pirated media, is that OK? I took nothing and they can re-download all the pirated media. No loss, correct?

[One Above All]

So, if I enter someone's domain and erase all of their pirated media, is that OK?  I took nothing and they can re-download all the pirated media. No loss, correct?

You're deleting something they had, so there is a loss.
Your arguments reek of desperation. You know that, right? Pretty soon you'll be saying piracy is why movie tickets are so expensive and why we need the government to have the right to hack into our hard drives.

EDIT: FYI, I'm still waiting for an answer to this:

What are software developers losing when people who cannot afford their software download it illegally instead?

[IATIA]

You're deleting something they had, so there is a loss.

And what is the loss? It did not cost anything and they can download it again. What was lost?

[One Above All]

You're deleting something they had, so there is a loss.

And what is the loss? It did not cost anything and they can download it again. What was lost?

You first:

What are software developers losing when people who cannot afford their software download it illegally instead?

EDIT: Do note that I have an answer to your question. You, however, don't seem to have one to mine.

[The Grand Nudger]

You guys are talking about IP..which doesn't have to have any particular physical presence or weight to be stolen.  

Someone has availed themselves of another persons productive effort without remuneration or consent.  Cut and dry.

[One Above All]

You guys are talking about IP..which doesn't have to have any particular physical presence or weight to be stolen.

Which is why I deny it's theft as most people define it, but concede that it's theft in the eyes of the law.

Someone has availed themselves of another persons productive effort without remuneration or consent. Cut and dry.

Yes, that's the definition of online piracy. As for its morality, I think we can all agree that the main issue is this:

What are software developers losing when people who cannot afford their software download it illegally instead?

[The Grand Nudger]

Does morality hinge upon affordability?  As in, it's only immoral to help one's self to another's productive effort without payment or consent...if you can afford it?

-sounds pretty sketchy. There's this awesome crop management software that I can't afford......helps manage whitefly in tomatos. Can I go rip that and feel comfortable that I've comported myself in a manner consistent with a positive moral actor?