Is Copyright Infringement Morally Equivalent to Stealing?

[tiger_striped_cat]

Obviously you would not have bought everything you have stolen, but you would have bought some of what you've stolen...
By stealing music, you have set up a situation where you have achieved your desires at no cost, and continue to achieve further desires at no cost.
...
The law of diminishing returns rules the situation.

This is an economic law, not a philosophical law. There are other means to get music. There are other ways to listen to music. In addition, if I think that CDs are just too expensive then I wouldn't buy any music. Maybe I would protest against the system, if I didn't have an alternative means. There are situations under which I would have bought no music. But I grant this, because I think there are stronger independent arguments. Yes, let’s say that I would have bought some music.

-------------------------------------------------------------
And I will repeat again the flaw in your utilitarian reasoning: if everyone reasoned as you did, nobody would buy the music, which leads to a very negative outcome. Thus, stealing is immoral by utilitarian standards.
-------------------------------------------------------------

I will respond with the same answer, when I make the claim that "your vote doesn't matter": I agree completely. It's true that if everyone didn't vote then this would have unfortunate outcomes. But we don't live in a world where my actions effect millions of people. If you take two worlds, one in which I die before I vote for my candidate and one after, are either of these world significantly different? No.
The same can be said for my music stealing situation. Yes, if millions did, then it would effect the music industry (actually, it may not, we'll see about that), but what if it was just me? Would you still think that I alone have that much of an impact on the industry. And please don't reply with an "if everyone did" response, because we just get in a loop. The utilitarian calculus applies only to real world situations, not fictitious ones.

To reanalyze on a more global scale, you have three kinds of people:
(1) People who sell the music.
(2) People who pay for the music.
(3) People who steal the music.
You HAVE to have group 2 for this situation to work. It's not just the people selling the music who are subsidizing your habit: it's the other law-abiding people who are legally purchasing the music as well.
In my lifetime, I've seen the effect of group 3's actions lead to consequences that directly harm group 2, so I'm not just talking theory here.

Actually, one of two things will happen:
1) I think we can agree that an amazing amount of music is stolen every day. Also we know artists make quite a bit of money. The moral impetus is this: Depending on how rich you are, you *should* fund the arts. However, this is the way it is now. The people who can afford $10 a CD or a $1 a song will buy them (I prefer to support artists by a more direct means.), people who cannot will find other means to improve their lives. But as for the people who think it's wrong. Yes, they are in the worst situation because of their beliefs. I really wish they would steal because it may bring about a better world:
2) Can you imagine it? If everyone stole and RIAA could not stop it, then the only people that would produce music are the ones who love it. After all, there are no exorbitant profits to be had—now that’s the kind of artist I want in the industry. The society as a whole would establish a "public trust" for music in some form or another to resolve this problem. Just as we've done for parks, mountains, and fire stations. We agreed as a society that these things shouldn't be in the market. Could the same be done for music? Wouldn't it be great if any book you've ever wanted to read was out there? And wouldn't it be terrible if we couldn't have this world because we were stuck in a given economic system (or subsystem)? Patrons of the arts have done it before, and we have systems in place to support artists so that anyone can go to an art gallery free, and not everyone likes art.
But we don't have to have such a radical a change. There are certain things that shouldn't be in the market (mountains), there are things that must be (cars), and there are things that maybe should straddle the line between both systems (legal drugs, music?). Should drug companies be allowed to make limitless profits at the expense of the elderly? Should musicians be allowed to make limitless profits at the expense of society (now I'm talking about those who already have millions of dollars). We can pay 99c for a song on Itunes these days. Now if artists made 1/10 of what they made these days, and if we get rid of the middleman (RIAA), we could pay ~0.01 cents a song. Alternatively, if you don't like that the artists are making 1000000 v.s. 10000000 then with a system that scales with income, you may still pay the same amount and artists will still get paid the same amount. Remember 5% of the people own 95% of the world.
Either way, based on the way the debate is going, it's obvious that the morality of music stealing is dependent on the current setup, on circumstance. This is not a candidate for a deontological moral law, it never is. It is tantamount to not jaywalking at 2 in the morning because it's against the law. Of course it's against the law, but it's not wrong. Just change the law (economic system, setup) and suddenly it's legal. But it was never wrong.

because selfish millionaire musicians...

Pot to kettle: you're black!

I just did the calculation: my $10 matters, a very conservative, 50 times more to me than to the artist. Who's really being selfish here? Kettle to pot: you're not!

 

[loseyourname]

well if they made a copy of it first and gave that copy back I'm sure it'd be an identicle situation. I don't mind using minimal energy to multiply the food in my kitchen to feed a perfect stranger.
If only!

You didn't limit it to ownership of information. You just said that ownership in general runs contradictory to liberty. I don't really see how you can actually think that is the case. If I built a house for myself, why should I not be able to claim it as mine? Would it really be more libertarian if anyone was allowed to come in and live in my house?

 

[Hurkyl]

And please don't reply with an "if everyone did" response, because we just get in a loop. The utilitarian calculus applies only to real world situations, not fictitious ones.

I'm sorry, but that's how utilitarianism works.

When considering a moral principle, the criterion is that it's a good principle if and only if it would lead to a good outcome if society at large adopted the principle.

The argument you are presenting is the prototypical argument of someone trying to rationalize away their immorality.

This is one of the standard things ruled out by utilitarianism: actions that appear to have a net benefit to society, but would lead to disasterous consequences if it was adopted as a general principle. (e.g. the surgeon who considers killing a healthy human being to harvest his organs, saving many other lives). Yours is even easier to rule out due to its selfishness: you aren't even benefiting society at large, you're only benefiting yourself.


Could things in general be better? Yep -- as you suggested, if we could achieve the same quality of music, but distributed freely and publicly subsidized, that would be great.

But that's a red herring: we're not talking about building a utopia, we're talking about the morality of stealing music today.

 

[Janus]

Okay, here's a situation to mull over:

Let's say that over time (pre-CDs) you had bought a number of LPs and tapes. You now decide that you would like these same albums on CD. You have a CD burner, but no way to transfer from the present medium they are on to the computer.

Is it immoral to download these albums from a file-sharer in order to burn them onto CD, considering that you have already paid full price for this music once?

What if you no longer have any of these previously purchased albums in your possession?

 

[tiger_striped_cat]

I'm sorry, but that's how utilitarianism works.

Actually it is. If I was anywhere near my book I would quote it directly. But I'm sure that these will do:
Regarding my "voting" example:
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:C4GAjePme9wJ:instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/util.htm+utilitarianism+%22your+vote+most+probably+won%27t+make+any+difference%22&hl=en&client=firefox-a
Regarding act v.s. rule Utilitarianism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
Regarding the fact that rule Utilitarianism has fallen out of favor:
http://www.utilitarianism.com/ruleutil.htm
In the very least, I can merely say that I'm a act-Utilitarian (who reason as I have); but, indeed most utilitarians are.

Could things in general be better? Yep -- as you suggested, if we could achieve the same quality of music, but distributed freely and publicly subsidized, that would be great.
But that's a red herring: we're not talking about building a utopia, we're talking about the morality of stealing music today.

And what if did talk about building a utopia? But you admit that it's dependent on one's economic system. This smacks of moral relativism of the worst kind. To kill is wrong, regardles of circumstance..

 

[Hurkyl]

In the very least, I can merely say that I'm a act-Utilitarian
...
To kill is wrong, regardles of circumstance..

This seems contradictory: for example, an act-Utilitarian should support, when all other factors are equal, the act of killing one person to save two other lives.

Rule utilitarianism is what was taught in the ethics class I had to take for my CS degree (it was geared for engineers, though), but I have other independent reasons for favoring rule utilitarianism over act utilitarianism. Prisoner paradox-type analysis, for example. Then, there's the circumstantial fact that the only times I ever see anyone using act utilitarianism to justify anything is when they're trying to rationalize an act that appears to be wrong (and is often obviously wrong).

For the record, my beliefs are at the opposite end of the scale: I believe that the ends generally cannot be used to justify the means. So, my analysis of the situation is easy: the manner in which you obtained the music is wrong, and that fact is not changed no matter how much you rationalize it.

For yet another angle, the one from which I generally argue in these discussions (even if I don't believe in it), morality is all about the prisoner-paradox: society as a whole is best off when everyone cooperates, and the concept of morality is to penalize those who would make the non-cooperative. This, of course, leads naturally into the rule utilitarian analysis.

And what if did talk about building a utopia? But you admit that it's dependent on one's economic system. This smacks of moral relativism of the worst kind. To kill is wrong, regardles of circumstance..

You cannot talk about morality at all unless you know enough of the circumstances around any situation.

E.G. is taking an apple immoral?

You can't answer. You don't know if someone has offered to give you one of their apples, or if we're talking about taking the first meal a homeless man has gotten in a week.

The economic system is only relevant insofar as it created the situation.

The music was sold to someone with the understanding that it would not be copied, and now you are conspiring with that someone to obtain a copy of that music. Thus, it is wrong.

The only relevance the current system has to the situation is that it makes these situations more frequent... this analysis would apply to any situation where you were obtaining a copy of the music from a source who had obtained it under the pretense that they would not copy it.

 

[Human Being]

Aside from one terse response, no other has taken the opportunity to address my previous post.
I don't know what that means... but I'll pretend it's because my points are irrefutable. Ha ha ha.

Seriously, look past my "tone" and give me some feedback. Remember, it's about the principles?

 

[Smurf]

You didn't limit it to ownership of information. You just said that ownership in general runs contradictory to liberty. I don't really see how you can actually think that is the case. If I built a house for myself, why should I not be able to claim it as mine? Would it really be more libertarian if anyone was allowed to come in and live in my house?

did you build the land it is built on and the wood you built it with?

it's an ethical argument

 

[Smurf]

Aside from one terse response, no other has taken the opportunity to address my previous post.
I don't know what that means... but I'll pretend it's because my points are irrefutable. Ha ha ha.

Seriously, look past my "tone" and give me some feedback. Remember, it's about the principles?

Well I would but... my posts are just so weak and uninspiring. I wouldn't stand a chance against you're omnipotent logic.

 

[tiger_striped_cat]

This seems contradictory: for example, an act-Utilitarian should support, when all other factors are equal, the act of killing one person to save two other lives.

Absolutely not. Most Utilitarians ARE act-Utilitarians. Convincing arguments have been made (as I've shown) that show that rule-Utilitarian is, for all intents and purposes, act-Utilitarianisms. The simple response to the above is that you did the calculation wrong. The Utilitarian calculus takes into consideration the difference between killing and letting die, so killing one to save two definitely is immoral because it creates more disutility.

Then, there's the circumstantial fact that the only times I ever see anyone using act utilitarianism to justify anything is when they're trying to rationalize an act that appears to be wrong (and is often obviously wrong).

Well first off all rule-Utilitarianism is basically act_Utiliarianism. Furthermore, your statement is neither here nor there. Because the case may be that they have rationalized correctly, and your provincial morality won't allow you to see it. I'm sure many people also thought that letting Rosa Parks sit on the front of the bus was "obviously wrong." But again, this is neither here nor there, because you didn't give a single example.

For the record, my beliefs are at the opposite end of the scale: I believe that the ends generally cannot be used to justify the means. So, my analysis of the situation is easy: the manner in which you obtained the music is wrong, and that fact is not changed no matter how much you rationalize it.

This is just a tautology that gives no examples or argumentation.

For yet another angle, the one from which I generally argue in these discussions (even if I don't believe in it), morality is all about the prisoner-paradox: society as a whole is best off when everyone cooperates, and the concept of morality is to penalize those who would make the non-cooperative. This, of course, leads naturally into the rule utilitarian analysis.

Exactly--well almost. I don't think anyone would call it a "prisoner-paradox". At least I've never seen it in any ethics texts. I think you're referring to the same thing I am. If you look at my original post I mentioned a "Rawlsian world." This is what you're talking about. Sort of like the quote, "The best way to divide disputed land is to get one side to divide the land, and let the other get the first choice. But Rawls takes it one step further. His philosophy is very much in the vein of this quote ("veil of ignorance", and the prisoner dilemma that you discuss). He says that the laws of society should benefit those who are most disadvantaged. Clearly, in this case, the millionaires seem to be most advantaged. As usually is the case, it is the rich that are not cooperating here.

The economic system is only relevant insofar as it created the situation.
The music was sold to someone with the understanding that it would not be copied, and now you are conspiring with that someone to obtain a copy of that music. Thus, it is wrong.

This is entirely non sequitur. What if the copy was for a backup? What if it was to give to a friend? You've done nothing but POSSIBLY proven that it is illegal, but not that it's wrong.

Again, we're talking about morality, not legality. You've moved the debate from a moral one to a legal one. I could care less if it's against the law, because you know what else is against the law...
http://www.stupidlaws.com

 

[Moonbear]

TThe same can be said for my music stealing situation. Yes, if millions did, then it would effect the music industry (actually, it may not, we'll see about that), but what if it was just me?

Then you're just being selfish. If it's not okay for anyone else, why is it okay for you to do it?

Patrons of the arts have done it before, and we have systems in place to support artists so that anyone can go to an art gallery free, and not everyone likes art.

Okay, so people also spend $1 million or $10 million or $50 million for a single painting to display. I suppose we could find a nice selection of 30 songs, costing millions of dollars each, and set up a gallery with different rooms to play those songs continuously, and if you wanted to hear music, you could go there to appreciate it, just make your $10 donation per visit. Very few art galleries are free, and someone is still paying for the art in them, usually with private donations. Of course someone else is picking out what they like to display; you can't walk into any gallery and see everything you like, and you certainly don't get to take the art home with you to appreciate there. So, I suppose if you want to limit music to only being available in single copies produced by just a few artists and only played at music museums, your argument for public endowments rather than paying would work, but that has nothing to do with stealing music that is not publically funded. Oh, wait, we do have something similar for music...turn on the radio. You can listen to NPR, which is publically funded, or you can listen to one of the stations sponsored by corporations through advertising dollars. Imagine that, there is a way for you to listen to music free without stealing it. If that's all you want, you've got it, so no need to steal music for your personal use.

But we don't have to have such a radical a change. There are certain things that shouldn't be in the market (mountains), there are things that must be (cars), and there are things that maybe should straddle the line between both systems (legal drugs, music?). Should drug companies be allowed to make limitless profits at the expense of the elderly? Should musicians be allowed to make limitless profits at the expense of society (now I'm talking about those who already have millions of dollars). We can pay 99c for a song on Itunes these days. Now if artists made 1/10 of what they made these days, and if we get rid of the middleman (RIAA), we could pay ~0.01 cents a song. Alternatively, if you don't like that the artists are making 1000000 v.s. 10000000 then with a system that scales with income, you may still pay the same amount and artists will still get paid the same amount.

You're not accounting for the costs to the recording industry to produce the songs, advertise the songs, distribute the songs, all of which would be borne by the individual artists instead if you eliminated the recording industry. You also haven't addressed my question above regarding payment for providing a service. Should people not be paid for providing services? That is what the recording industry does, they provide the service of getting the music from the artist to you.

It is tantamount to not jaywalking at 2 in the morning because it's against the law.

No, it's not at all the same. That jaywalking law is there to protect you and motorists from injury, it's not there to protect ownership. It might be more similar to going to a hot-tub dealer and using their hot tubs without buying based on the rationale that your neighbor bought a hot tub from them, and lots of other people buy hot tubs from them, so it won't cost anything if you use their hot tubs for free with no intention to purchase one.

I just did the calculation: my $10 matters, a very conservative, 50 times more to me than to the artist. Who's really being selfish here? Kettle to pot: you're not!

Who cares if it costs you more than the artist? That doesn't make it right. That just means you should choose carefully how you spend your money, and if you can't afford it, you don't buy it. If you're trying to rationalize it by the amount it costs, then would that mean it would be immoral if an album cost only 20 cents instead of $10? Are you then sending 20 cents to each artist for every album you download free? It's either immoral to steal music or it isn't; there's no sliding scale of dollar values to morality.

 

[tiger_striped_cat]

Freedom and greed, the two great wastes that waste great together...
No - I'm not bashing freedom itself, but the people who openly abuse it.
People who unabashedly file-share are often easily fit into a stereotype.

File-sharing's immoral because of the PRINCIPLE behind the act of theft.
Seems that many people in "civil" societies do not understand principles.
It's obvious that the PRINCIPLE of theft is counterproductive to society.

Forget about the specifics of situations. Stop explaining how it's "okay".
Principles transcend details - theft is theft is theft is theft is theft is...
Games people play with semantics are so transparent and weak-minded.

I laugh with glee every time I hear/see a news story about file "sharers"
getting busted. America makes Rome of old look like a preschool recess.
Capitalism + freedom + greed = wage-slave citizenry easily controlled...

PRINCIPLES... what say ye, file thieves? Do you understand "principle"??
It isn't the specific theft you commit that is "terrible", but the motives!
There are very few justifications for theft and GREED certainly isn't one.

Oh, and to Smurf - your posts in this thread are weak and uninspiring...

Human_Being. I didn't reply because I don't consider this argument all that strong. There's no substance here. You didn't really define "principle", or give any concrete examples. This is more of your speech from the pulpit than an opening statement of a debate. You need to give an example. Here I'll give you one of the srongest examples (but hardest to prove), a deductive argument:

1) Someone who makes over a certain level of money, doesn't need anymore money.
2)If you don't need anymore money, you can now give away your product for free.
3) If you usually sell music, you can now give music away for free.
4) If you can give music away for free and if it benefits others, you should give it away for free.
5) If you should give it away for free, you should want people to trade your music (whether or not it's legal).
6) If artists want people to trade their music illegally, then it's moral to trade music.

3 and 5 basically are rewrites of 2 and 4. 2 is almost obvious. 5 is fairly obvous. What are contraversial are 1 and 6.

As for 1---
Now I think that it's wrong that 95% of the world is owned by 5% of the pepole. I think that a capitalist system should not be let to run rampant. Every once in a while you get industries that do run rampant. Drug Companies, credit card companies, wallmart, and the muisic industry are all examples of establishments who control the prices of their product. Drug companies can set the cost of their own product. Credit card companies can raise your rates for any reason whatsoever. Wall-mart is so powerful it can force distrubitors into a given cost. And the market doesn't set cd prices via supply and demand. You don't see Busta Rhymes lowering his costs to get more people interested in his music. It would be nice if we had some sort of competition, but RIAA makes sure cd prices are set at a given cost. But I'm geting ahead of myself. Because the wealth of these companies is amazing. It's inefficient, and benefits no one but <1% of the world.

6 is plausable. Someone on this thread already said that taking Micheal Moores movie was ok, becasue he said it was ok. For this person 6 easily follows.

 

[Hurkyl]

1) Someone who makes over a certain level of money, doesn't need anymore money.
2)If you don't need anymore money, you can now give away your product for free.
3) If you usually sell music, you can now give music away for free.
4) If you can give music away for free and if it benefits others, you should give it away for free.
5) If you should give it away for free, you should want people to trade your music (whether or not it's legal).
6) If artists want people to trade their music illegally, then it's moral to trade music.

3 and 5 basically are rewrites of 2 and 4. 2 is almost obvious. 5 is fairly obvous. What are contraversial are 1 and 6.

I see two obvious problems with this argument (and they have nothing to do with 1 and 6):

Even if an artist can and should give music away for free, it does not follow that the artist wants to, or does give the music away for free.

It does not apply to the most common situation under discussion where the artist has agreed to let another party make all decisions about who can copy the music.

 

[Human Being]

The principle of theft can only exist with the principle of ownership. Which, it seems to me, is a direct confrontation to 'liberty'.

Regarding the statements quoted...

(1) Please specify which definition of "liberty" you meant. Most of the ensuing debate over your statements has centered around "libertarianism", which of course encapsulates a much larger concept than mere "liberty".

For reference:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

(2) Please explain how your statements apply to the "file sharing is not immoral" position. *IF* the principle of ownership is a direct confrontation to "'liberty'", what does that imply?

(3) Your terseness has prevented me (and potentially others) from drawing any real value from said statements, and it has prevented your ensuing posts from adding any real value to your previous statements.

I would like to address your quoted statements more thoroughly, and I will if that opportunity presents itself.

 

[tiger_striped_cat]

Then you're just being selfish. If it's not okay for anyone else, why is it okay for you to do it?

You're confused here. I didn't say it's not ok for anyone else. I said, what if I was the only one. We were talking about the consequences.

Okay, so people also spend $1 million or $10 million or $50 million for a single painting to display. I suppose we could find a nice selection of 30 songs, costing millions of dollars each, and set up a gallery with different rooms to play those songs continuously, and if you wanted to hear music, you could go there to appreciate it, just make your $10 donation per visit.

This is just a straw man, because there are many better ways, and Ill show you…

Very few art galleries are free, and someone is still paying for the art in them, usually with private donations. Of course someone else is picking out what they like to display; you can't walk into any gallery and see everything you like, and you certainly don't get to take the art home with you to appreciate there. So, I suppose if you want to limit music to only being available in single copies produced by just a few artists and only played at music museums, your argument for public endowments rather than paying would work.

The reason that this is a false analogy is that art is tangible, the number of people that go to galleries compared to who listen to music is miniscule. Just do the math. Do you know how much money cd sales made last year? 17 Billion dollars. And did you know taht 5% of that went to the artists. If you cut RIAA out and cut the profits of artists buy ANY percentage we could have 5 times as many artists and twice the music.

You're not accounting for the costs to the recording industry to produce the songs, advertise the songs, distribute the songs, all of which would be borne by the individual artists instead if you eliminated the recording industry.

Oh yes I am.
Production of recording per album (without videos)=$50,000
(this assumes a recording studio, if were talking about a recording booth: $10
Distribution over Internet=free
Advertise=I don't ever see commercials for Linkin Park. I never read in newspapers or magiznes ads for Coldplay. They are advertised via word of mouth, radio (which is free) and MTV. Word of mouth advertising=free
The beauty of music: priceless

(sorry I had to)

At this cost 340,000 albums can be produced a year. But I'm sure you'll think of some other costs. So let's do something crazy and say that I underestimated the costs by 100X, that means 3400 albums per year. Isn't it amazing when you cut out the middleman?

You also haven't add
ressed my question above regarding payment for providing a service. Should people not be paid for providing services? That is what the recording industry does, they provide the service of getting the music from the artist to you.

And they are no longer necessary. Never before has an industry litigated itself to subsistence. Like a telegraph company suing people using telephones (well not that bad). Before, CDs had to be made. Now they don't. Its an interesting time, and RIAA is unnecessary.

No, it's not at all the same. That jaywalking law is there to protect you and motorists from injury, it's not there to protect ownership. It might be more similar to going to a hot-tub dealer and using their hot tubs without buying based on the rationale that your neighbor bought a hot tub from them, and lots of other people buy hot tubs from them, so it won't cost anything if you use their hot tubs for free with no intention to purchase one.

HA HA. The context of that example was regarding illegality and morality, not ownership, but ok. But the great thing about these hot-tubs. They're infinitely reproducible, cost nothing to transport, and can be given to every person in the world. I think it's sort of selfish for the rich hot-tub dealer to say, "No, you can't have one of my infinite hot-tubs."

Who cares if it costs you more than the artist? That doesn't make it right. That just means you should choose carefully how you spend your money, and if you can't afford it, you don't buy it. If you're trying to rationalize it by the amount it costs, then would that mean it would be immoral if an album cost only 20 cents instead of $10? Are you then sending 20 cents to each artist for every album you download free? It's either immoral to steal music or it isn't; there's no sliding scale of dollar values to morality.

Why not? Say some guy has all the money in the world, he made it fair and square. Let's say he sold cd's. To make the analogy more exact, let's say he has an infinite number of cd's. Let's also say there's this poor couple. They are ok, but it wouldn’t it be nice if they had some music to listen to. Now the guy,could give one of his cd's to this couple but doesn't. What if they *gasp* copied one of the infinite cds from this man? Would it be wrong? Well maybe about as wrong as it would be to tell a white lie to save your friends feelings. But you’re missing the question that everyone does: what should be said about the morality of the person who withholds something that can benefit someone and has no reason to do so. That seems much worse to me. But this example doesn't seem the best, there's someone who did a much better job of explaining it than me:

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972----.htm

This is written in the context of saving lives but the idea is the same. If we have the power to help someone at no cost to ourselves, we should do it. What some artists (remember, some want you to download their music) are doing is wrong. And, no, I have absolutely no moral qualms of taking an beautiful infinitely reproducible good from a millionaire.

 

[tiger_striped_cat]

I see two obvious problems with this argument (and they have nothing to do with 1 and 6):
Even if an artist can and should give music away for free, it does not follow that the artist wants to, or does give the music away for free.
It does not apply to the most common situation under discussion where the artist has agreed to let another party make all decisions about who can copy the music.

They should want to. It's very wrong for them to withhold music from people when it will cost them nothing, and they still have all their millions of dollars. See the link to the essay above.

 

[Hurkyl]

They should want to. It's very wrong for them to withhold music from people when it will cost them nothing, and they still have all their millions of dollars. See the link to the essay above.

Forgive me for being cliché, but two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[tiger_striped_cat]

Forgive me for being cliché, but two wrongs do not make a right.

Sorta like stealing bread to feed your family from someone that wants you to starve. But you are forgiven, ethics is never that easy.

 

[Smurf]

Rule Utilitarianism and Act Utilitarianism are very different.
Here's an illustration:
A surgeon has six patients: one needs a liver, one needs a pancreas, one needs a gall bladder, and two need kidneys. The sixth just came into have his appendix removed. Should the surgeon kill the sixth man and pass his organs around to the others? Or, indeed, what would stop him from simply hunting down and slaughtering the first healthy man (the seventh) he comes across on the street, patient or non-patient? This would obviously violate the rights of the sixth/seventh man, but act utilitarianism seems to imply that, given a purely binary choice between (1) killing the man and distributing his organs or (2) not doing so and the other five dying, violating his rights is exactly what we ought to do. This choice would be reasoned as a choice of outcomes, (1) having one dead, and choice (2) having five dead, the implementation being ignored and the outcomes strictly focused upon.

A rule utilitarian, however, would look at the rule, rather than the act, that would be instituted by cutting up the sixth man. The rule in this case would be: "whenever a surgeon could kill one relatively healthy person in order to transplant his organs to more than one other person who needs them, he ought to do so." This rule, if instituted in society, would obviously lead to bad consequences. Relatively healthy people would stop going to the hospital, we'd end up performing many risky transplant operations, etc., etc. So a rule utilitarian would say we should implement the opposite rule: don't harvest healthy people's organs to give them to sick people. If the surgeon killed the sixth (seventh) man, then he would be doing the wrong thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#Act_utilitarianism_vs._rule_utilitarianism

 

[Hurkyl]

Sorta like stealing bread to feed your family from someone that wants you to starve. But you are forgiven, ethics is never that easy.

?

I don't see how this is a response to what I said, but maybe the meaning of that cliché wasn't clear.

The meaning of the phrase "Two wrongs don't make a right" is that you cannot justify a wrong act by saying it's in response to some other wrong act.

You seem to have given up trying to argue that stealing music is not a wrong act, and now seem to be trying to argue that the fact that (certain) music is not freely available is a very wrong thing. You are making this point as if it counts as a proof that stealing music is not a wrong act. (i.e. a "right")

But the fact of the matter is that this is a red herring. If stealing music is a right, that won't be proven by arguing that it should have been made freely available. If stealing music is a wrong, then arguing that it should have been made freely available doesn't change that fact. (i.e. two wrongs don't make a right)

Here's an exercise for you: explain why your example is not a counterexample to "Two wrongs don't make a right".

 

[tiger_striped_cat]

?
I don't see how this is a response to what I said, but maybe the meaning of that cliché wasn't clear.
The meaning of the phrase "Two wrongs don't make a right" is that you cannot justify a wrong act by saying it's in response to some other wrong act.

I'm sorry, I was trying to show you the err of your ways. The entire problem with your statement, is that file-sharing isn't wrong in the same way that sealing bread isn't wrong. You made a false analogy.

You seem to have given up trying to argue that stealing music is not a wrong act, and now seem to be trying to argue that the fact that (certain) music is not freely available is a very wrong thing. You are making this point as if it counts as a proof that stealing music is not a wrong act. (i.e. a "right")
But the fact of the matter is that this is a red herring. If stealing music is a right, that won't be proven by arguing that it should have been made freely available. If stealing music is a wrong, then arguing that it should have been made freely available doesn't change that fact. (i.e. two wrongs don't make a right)

No my statement is both. It's not wrong to steal, because of the many arguments above (the consequentialist one comes to mine), AND that what they are doing is wrong. But I'm game, EVEN IF I don't ahve the arguments above, I think you see that the cliche is just that. If someone steals bread from someone who wants them to starve, it's the same thing. Two wrongs (stealing bread, wanting to starve), but that's not a right, correct? Your response will be explaining the differnce. Whatever explaniation you give will be the same response that I give to my situation.

Here's an exercise for you: explain why your example is not a counterexample to "Two wrongs don't make a right".

Explained at start

 

[Human Being]

Human_Being. I didn't reply because I don't consider this argument all that strong. There's no substance here. You didn't really define "principle", or give any concrete examples. This is more of your speech from the pulpit than an opening statement of a debate.

Oh, I'd say there's some substance here:

File-sharing's immoral because of the PRINCIPLE behind the act of theft.
Seems that many people in "civil" societies do not understand principles.
It's obvious that the PRINCIPLE of theft is counterproductive to society.

Forget about the specifics of situations. Stop explaining how it's "okay".
Principles transcend details - theft is theft is theft is theft is theft is...
Games people play with semantics are so transparent and weak-minded.

If you must know, the definition I intend when I use the word "principle" is:
A basic or essential quality or element determining intrinsic nature or characteristic behavior.

Regardless of how immorally the music industry behaves, anyone who would participate in behavior which deprives another of deserved profit *is* behaving immorally as well. The act of theft deprives another of deserved profit or deserved property. While there are situations in which it is understandable that a person would steal, it does not follow that in said situations the theft was moral. That's why I said "theft is theft is theft..." - the *principle* behind the act of theft is the central issue to whether or not file-sharing is immoral.

As for 1---
Now I think that it's wrong that 95% of the world is owned by 5% of the pepole. I think that a capitalist system should not be let to run rampant. Every once in a while you get industries that do run rampant. Drug Companies, credit card companies, wallmart, and the muisic industry are all examples of establishments who control the prices of their product. Drug companies can set the cost of their own product. Credit card companies can raise your rates for any reason whatsoever. Wall-mart is so powerful it can force distrubitors into a given cost. And the market doesn't set cd prices via supply and demand. You don't see Busta Rhymes lowering his costs to get more people interested in his music. It would be nice if we had some sort of competition, but RIAA makes sure cd prices are set at a given cost. But I'm geting ahead of myself. Because the wealth of these companies is amazing. It's inefficient, and benefits no one but <1% of the world.

I *agree* with what you've said in the above quote. Having said that, it does *not* follow that your points 1 through 6 support the "file-sharing is not immoral" position. You are basically "explaining how it's 'okay'" - and, in my opinion, ineffectually.

People, we aren't talking about someone stealing food or water in order to avoid potential death. We're talking about millions of people, already surviving quite nicely as evidenced by their owning or having access to an electronic device which plays digital music. We're talking about millions of people who *want* something non-essential, without paying for it. Greed, plain and simple. Theft, plain and simple.

It should be stated that the use of the generic term "file-sharing", in my post and likely in others', is really specific to the type of file-sharing which results in copyright violation. Such file-sharing isn't justifiable through any excuse. If an artist owns their product, they have the legal right to license their product in a way that decriminalizes the duplication of that product. They could even forego applying for a copyright. Rarely, some do this. Most often though, the product *is* copyrighted.

Lastly, a compliment is in order - Hurkyl, your contributions to this thread are objective and sensible. In my opinion, you clearly "get it".

 

[Hurkyl]

You made a false analogy.

I wasn't making an analogy. I was pointing out that the alledged wrongness of not making music freely available does not make stealing music a right act.

If I was using "Two wrongs don't make a right" to justify my claim that stealing music is a wrong, then you'd have me... not on a false analogy, but on assuming what I'm trying to prove.

Let me say it more bluntly:

Your argument is either a non sequitur or a red herring, depending on whether or not it was intended to justify your claim that file stealing is not wrong.

There, I hope that cannot possibly be misinterpreted.

I think you see that the cliche is just that.

Well, duh. That a cliché is a cliché should be trivially obvious.

Two wrongs (stealing bread, wanting to starve), but that's not a right, correct? Your response will be explaining the differnce.

Given the hypothesis that stealing bread is a wrong, then it follows that (stealing bread, wanting to starve) is also a wrong.

To what difference are you referring?

 

[tiger_striped_cat]

People, we aren't talking about someone stealing food or water in order to avoid potential death. We're talking about millions of people, already surviving quite nicely as evidenced by their owning or having access to an electronic device which plays digital music. We're talking about millions of people who *want* something non-essential, without paying for it. Greed, plain and simple. Theft, plain and simple.

Then change the analogy. Let's say someone owns infinite loaves of bread and some people are "doing quite nicely." They don't need the bread. But there lives are inhanced if they can have an extra piece of bread. Shouldn't the millionare give one of his infinite loves of bread to the couple. (You're right about that greed part.) And do you really think that it would be wrong for the couple to copy one of the infinite loaves to bring there lives up a triffle? The question were talking about here is: do you think it's morally wrong to be selfish? If it is, then maybe the rich(er) should give to the poor(er).

I HAVE to go to bed. Good talking to you all. See you tomorrow.

 

[Hurkyl]

The question were talking about here is: do you think it's morally wrong to be selfish?

No, it is not.

The question we're talking about here is, "Do you think it's morally wrong to steal (music)?"

The question of whether it's morally wrong to be selfish is nothing but a red herring.

 

[tiger_striped_cat]

Your argument is either a non sequitur or a red herring, depending on whether or not it was intended to justify your claim that file stealing is not wrong.
There, I hope that cannot possibly be misinterpreted.

I do understand. But you've failed to explain any of it. You said "two wrongs don't make a right." What are the two wrongs? I know one is withholding music. And the other? What is it? If it's stealing music being wrong, then why would I claim the exact opposite of what I was trying to prove this entire time.

Well, duh. That a cliché is a cliché should be trivially obvious.
Given the hypothesis that stealing bread is a wrong, then it follows that (stealing bread, wanting to starve) is also a wrong.
To what difference are you referring?

So you agree with me?
Given the permise that sealing music is wrong, then it follows that
(stealing music, wanting not to have music) is also wrong.
When did I ever make that my premise? Why would I ever do such a thing?

 

[tiger_striped_cat]

No, it is not.
The question we're talking about here is, "Do you think it's morally wrong to steal (music)?"
The question of whether it's morally wrong to be selfish is nothing but a red herring.

Doesn't matter. My arguments don't stand on this by anymeans. But one way to strengthen it is to ask the question(s):
"Do you think it's morally wrong to steal music?"
"Under what circumstances, because you can't steal a CD from the store."

Circumstances: infinitely reproduceable, owner is selfish, dependent on capitalist sytem, millions can benifit, music is special in it's own right.
Other Circumstances: owner wants you to have it, you contribute a smal amount of money, you would of never had bought the cd either way

All of them stand on their own, but adding this only strengthens the argument.

 

[Hurkyl]

When did I ever make that my premise?

You stated it as a premise here:

Two wrongs (stealing bread, wanting to starve), but that's not a right, correct? Your response will be explaining the differnce.

Doesn't matter. My arguments don't stand on this by anymeans.

In other words, it's a red herring.

All of them stand on their own, but adding this only strengthens the argument.

No, it doesn't. If your other arguments aren't sufficient to prove that stealing music is not a wrong, then when you add this one, it's still insufficient to prove that stealing music is not a wrong.

Similarly. if your other arguments aren't sufficient to refute the hypothesis that stealing music is wrong, then adding this argument is still insufficient to refute the hypothesis. (i.e. two wrongs don't make a right)

 

[Human Being]

Rule Utilitarianism and Act Utilitarianism are very different.
Here's an illustration:
A surgeon has six patients: one needs a liver, one needs a pancreas, one needs a gall bladder, and two need kidneys. The sixth just came into have his appendix removed. Should the surgeon kill the sixth man and pass his organs around to the others? Or, indeed, what would stop him from simply hunting down and slaughtering the first healthy man (the seventh) he comes across on the street, patient or non-patient? This would obviously violate the rights of the sixth/seventh man, but act utilitarianism seems to imply that, given a purely binary choice between (1) killing the man and distributing his organs or (2) not doing so and the other five dying, violating his rights is exactly what we ought to do. This choice would be reasoned as a choice of outcomes, (1) having one dead, and choice (2) having five dead, the implementation being ignored and the outcomes strictly focused upon.
A rule utilitarian, however, would look at the rule, rather than the act, that would be instituted by cutting up the sixth man. The rule in this case would be: "whenever a surgeon could kill one relatively healthy person in order to transplant his organs to more than one other person who needs them, he ought to do so." This rule, if instituted in society, would obviously lead to bad consequences. Relatively healthy people would stop going to the hospital, we'd end up performing many risky transplant operations, etc., etc. So a rule utilitarian would say we should implement the opposite rule: don't harvest healthy people's organs to give them to sick people. If the surgeon killed the sixth (seventh) man, then he would be doing the wrong thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#Act_utilitarianism_vs._rule_utilitarianism

I'm glad you didn't write any of that, because...

(1) why should we assume that an act utilitarian's ONLY two options in that scenario are to kill one person or kill five people?
(2) the appendix removal isn't explicitly declared an emergency appendectomy, so we cannot assume it is.
(3) if the surgeon arbitrarily kills one man, he not only has some explaining to do, he risks going to prison.
(4) the other five patients aren't declared to be at risk of immediate death, so we cannot assume they are.

Okay, I'm not going to continue explaining why the above "illustration" is virtually worthless on its own, let alone as an aid in determining whether or not file-sharing is immoral. Whomever composed the above hypothetical, failed in my opinion. What are YOU trying to say, Smurf? Are you trying to say that based on act utilitarianism, individual acts of copyright violation produce utility *therefore* copyright violation by millions produces utility?

I wish some participants in this thread would come up with a sound argument to support their position that file-sharing is not immoral. Thus far, the lot of posts attempting to, are surprisingly easy to refute.

 

[Human Being]

Then change the analogy. Let's say someone owns infinite loaves of bread and some people are "doing quite nicely." They don't need the bread. But there lives are inhanced if they can have an extra piece of bread. Shouldn't the millionare give one of his infinite loves of bread to the couple. (You're right about that greed part.) And do you really think that it would be wrong for the couple to copy one of the infinite loaves to bring there lives up a triffle? The question were talking about here is: do you think it's morally wrong to be selfish? If it is, then maybe the rich(er) should give to the poor(er).
I HAVE to go to bed. Good talking to you all. See you tomorrow.

Why rely on analogy, when analyzing the actual paradigm itself is simple enough? Most people make inaccurate analogies, as evidenced by this very thread. For example, someone owning "infinite" loaves of bread does NOT correspond to the situation of file-sharing. My goodness, just look at what you wrote, TSC! I'm almost shocked that someone would even propose such statements as an argument in favor of the "file-sharing is not immoral" position.

Some people here apparently don't realize that they *are* cliche. File-sharing is akin to "if you can't beat them, join them." Since the music industry is ripping me off, I'll rip them off. Millions of other people are ripping off the music industry, so what's one more?

I'd just like to reiterate how inadequate the arguments have been in support of the "file-sharing is not immoral" position.

 

[Smurf]

What are YOU trying to say, Smurf?

Someone on the previous page said that rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism were the same thing. That's simply untrue, I was providing a reference for it.

 

[Smurf]

I'd just like to reiterate how inadequate the arguments have been in support of the "file-sharing is not immoral" position.

What are the arguments in support of the "file-sharing is wrong" position?

 

[tiger_striped_cat]

You stated it as a premise here:

But I'm not trying to prove that sealing bread is wrong. And I was quoting you. Where did I say that stealing music was wrong?

No, it doesn't. If your other arguments aren't sufficient to prove that stealing music is not a wrong, then when you add this one, it's still insufficient to prove that stealing music is not a wrong.

That doesn't follow at all. What if the arguments are independent? The Utilitarian argument is independent of the selfishness of the artists argument. If one fails, the other can still succeed.

Similarly. if your other arguments aren't sufficient to refute the hypothesis that stealing music is wrong, then adding this argument is still insufficient to refute the hypothesis. (i.e. two wrongs don't make a right)

I think we're wasting time with this. We are arguing about arguing, fine fine. This doesn't matter, how about back to the topic. Ill start:

Copyrights expire. At the moment some people say its wrong to download music. There a few spurious reasons they say this. But it's interesting to look at the moment the copyright expires. Some say wrong to download because they don't want you to trade their music.

Assume the copyright is about to expire and assume the artist (or his estate) doesn't want you to have the song but is denied the copyright extension.
Look at one second before and after the copyright expires, it seems like it was wrong before and then it's right after. Or is it? If morality does change so suddenly, then this is obviously absurd, or at least isn't a candidate of a moral law. If it doesn't change like this then either it is morally permissible before, or it should be illegal after. I assume you wouldn't admit to it being moral before the expiration because this proves my point. So I take it you'll say that it should be made illegal. That is, we should allow unrestricted copyrights? Do you believe this, please explain?

 

[tiger_striped_cat]

Why rely on analogy, when analyzing the actual paradigm itself is simple enough? Most people make inaccurate analogies, as evidenced by this very thread. For example, someone owning "infinite" loaves of bread does NOT correspond to the situation of file-sharing. My goodness, just look at what you wrote, TSC! I'm almost shocked that someone would even propose such statements as an argument in favor of the "file-sharing is not immoral" position.
Some people here apparently don't realize that they *are* cliche. File-sharing is akin to "if you can't beat them, join them." Since the music industry is ripping me off, I'll rip them off. Millions of other people are ripping off the music industry, so what's one more?
I'd just like to reiterate how inadequate the arguments have been in support of the "file-sharing is not immoral" position.

Get off your soapbox and form an argument please. Philosophers use analogy all the time--it's an accepted practice. This is because ethics is very difficult. Sometimes wrong and right are not clear in complicated situations. And this case, no, it's not simple enough. Maybe you don't understand it, but that's not enough to dismiss it outright. The fact is there is nothing wrong with using an analogy and you haven't shown how my analogy is false. Humor me. Let's use the analogy and see where it takes us, because your personal beliefs are interfering with this ethical reasoning.

 

[tiger_striped_cat]

Someone on the previous page said that rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism were the same thing. That's simply untrue, I was providing a reference for it.

Actually they ARE the same thing:

"Another problem is that the best rules would not be simple. The best rule for promise-keeping would be of the form: 'Always keep your promises except...'(where the list of exceptions would be very long). This led the American philosopher David Lyons to argue, in Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism 1965, that a plausible formulation of rule-utilitarianism would make it recommend the same actions as act-utilitarianism, so the two kinds are 'extensionally equivalent' and there is no practical difference between the two. Currently, rule-utilitarian formulations seem to be ought of favour, but there are attempts to rehabilitate them."

http://www.utilitarianism.com/ruleutil.htm