generalnmx
Playful/Fascist Mod
The only reasons for laws are:
1) try and stop stupid people from doing stupid things
2) try and stop evil people from doing evil things
Hopefully many of us on this board are part of the more enlightened. If we are all enlightened, then we wouldn't need laws, and everything could be PD, etc. Unfortunately, we aren't all enlightened, are we...
Suppose we have a society of enlightened individuals. There would be no need for laws, since everyone does what is universally morally acceptable. People could download MP3s/ROMs/etc. freely, because the creators know that they will be eventually rewarded.
Therefore, the next step in the evolution of our society is free MP3s.
I've said this before, but I think in light of this board's host, it warrents occasional revisitation:
There are two ways of looking at morality: the optimistic way and the pessimistic way. Legally, the pessimistic way is almost always chosen, because it's statistically favourable.
- Pirating and Distribution of MP3s/ROMs/etc.
Optimistic: They don't know what will happen to them.
Pessimistic: It's naive to think evil will not befall them.
Optimistic: It's up to society to adapt.
Pessimistic: Society is not ready.
- Downloading MP3s/ROMs/etc.
Optimistic: Only people with good intentions will download.
Pessimistic: Yeah right.
Unfortunately, many of the times the pessimist is true, and the law should side with the pessimist until society is enlightened. However, there is one crucial point to note: downloading MP3s/ROMs/etc. only takes one individual. Many people try to relate downloading to stealing, but the problem is that downloading digital copies represents an infinite domain, while "stealing" can only take place in a finite domain. Of course, the problem can be redefined to a finite state, but that redefinition has to be warrented. OK, so let's define a problem:
"The marketplace has 10 apples for sale. Penniless Jim is hungry, and takes 1 apple."
Is this morally correct on all bounds? Some people, out of sympathy for poor Jim, will take a rather "greedy" approach to morality - well, poor Jim is so pitiful, he deserves that apple. But what if the family that ran that marketplace needed that money to survive, what then? Here, we are not given enough information to fully comprehend the complete ramifications of the situation, so we can only apply this "greedy" solution. Let's look at the problem like this:
1) The Marketplace has a finite supply of apples.
2) The Marketplace deserves money for providing their service of supplying apples.
3) Each apple represents a percentage of profit for the Marketplace.
4) Jim has no money.
5) Jim is hungry, but not starving.
OK, so let's try a similiar problem...
"The marketplace has an infinite supply of apples for sale. Penniless Jim is hungry, and takes 1 apple."
I can't think of a situation where this is morally wrong, theoretically. The key here is not to attack a straw man - obviously this cannot exist in the real world, but that isn't the point of the problem. Making an infinite problem into a finite problem without cause is not logically sound. Let's look at it like this:
1) The Marketplace has an infinite supply of apples.
2) The Marketplace deserves money for providing their service of supplying apples.
3) Each apple does NOT represent a percentage of profit for the Marketplace.
4) Jim has no money.
5) Jim is hungry, but not starving.
Let's jump onto the problem at hand:
"A MP3 of a popular musician is available for download without their consent. Jim downloads their music."
Is there something morally wrong with this problem? Well, I can already see some holes - what does the artist get out of this? Will Jim still want to buy the artist's album after listening to the MP3s?
1) The Internet has an infinite supply of MP3s.
2) The artist deserves money for providing their service of supplying their music.
3) Each piece of music does NOT represent a percentage of profit for the creator.
Morally, there's no reason Jim should be downloading that MP3. So let's modify it:
"A MP3 of a popular musician is available for download without their consent. Jim downloads their music. Jim cannot afford to buy their music."
1) The Internet has an infinite supply of MP3s.
2) The artist deserves money for providing their service of supplying their music.
3) Each piece of music does NOT represent a percentage of profit for the creator.
4) Jim can't afford to buy their music.
I think you can see the main argument I am trying to convey. If your action does not directly effect anything in a negative way, then it cannot be morally wrong. If Jim cannot afford to buy their music, then, based on an entirely moral why shouldn't he be allowed to download it, assuming downloading it does not decrease his desire to possibly buy their music int he future?
Here-in lies the debate of Morality vs Legality - we aren't evolved enough as a society to be based on a universal morality instead of legality, but we should be evolved enough to agknowledge when decisions may be morally acceptable even when they are not legally.