Quote:
Originally Posted by UKHaiku
Hmm, that's debatable... Unrestrained capitalism and making money IS ethically wrong - the fallout of which we've seen demonstrated in the past few weeks...
|
Unrestrained capitalism is merely the right of every individual to produce and trade freely. How can this be ethically wrong? Negative behaviour like theft and fraud are not inherrant in capitalism (unrestrained or otherwise) but crimes that must be fought under any economic system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsuden
I'll acknowledge I know from first-hand experience the art of introducing clever circumvention mechanisms into my thought processes when I'm tempted to do what's clearly wrong. Over the years I've learned that I don't have to "travel" nearly as far in when I stick to doing what's right.
But on this issue, parsing by any means is difficult. It doesn't work to dilute or divert blame for stolen works. The word "copyright" speaks for itself. It refers to "copy rights." If we don't have "copy rights," we have no right to make and/or keep a copy of something we have not purchased. Nor do we have the right to duplicate copyrighted materials and distribute them to others without the consent of the person owning the copyright. To do so is, by law, theft.
None of this is to say I necessarily agree with the way the laws are currently applied. But I think it's more credible to work within the law, and if necessary, help change it, rather than performing my own "moral rewrite" of the law by doing whatever I please.
|
Just because some people wish to grant themselves a monopoly on the distribution of information doesn't entitle them to decide who has the rights to copy what. And blind adherance to the law is no virtue. One should question the law and if one finds it to be wrong, then
civil disobedience is a justified way of opposing the law.
As Danny Fekete so
elequently explained, downloading a file has no more of a consequence to the authors bank account than writing a negative review of the book on your blog. I'm sure the publishers would love to outlaw bad reviews but thankfully we value free speech too much.
pilotbob's example of someone squatting on your property is interesting and I love Danny's reply. I would have to agree that if there is no risk of damaging the property or preventing the owner access to his property (if he comes home early) then the squatter wouldn't, necessarily, be doing anything wrong. Of course this isn't be plausible with the house example, but there may be cases where it is.