[darryl]

There has been little focus so far on the relationship between law and morality. A simplistic view is of course that law and morality always coincide, though we all know that this is simply not true. Is breaking the law itself immoral? If so we have taken moral authority from the hands of philosophers and religious leaders and handed it to a rabble of politicians, dictators and even tyrants, most of whom have no claim to any expertise on the subject.

Say we accept that it is immoral to infringe a copyright that lasts 14 years total. After the 14 years expires, it would seem to be perfectly legal to do something that would have infringed copyright only the year before. Is it also moral? When a new law then extends copyright for a period likely beyond the life of any living person, has it also legislated the morality of actions infringing copyright?

Moving on, should we judge the morality of each individual act in isolation, or is a more holistic approach the correct one? Is "two wrongs don't make a right" really the correct approach. In common law jurisdictions it is an equitable maxim that one who seeks the assistance of equity must come to the Court with "clean hands". Thus someone with a perfect legal claim can find themselves without relief because of their own conduct. In judging the morality of infringing copyright must we ignore all of the immoral acts of rights owners? Must we ignore the fact their lobbying has resulted in an unconscionably long period of copyright protection and a legal framework which, at least in the US, now works in many cases against the public interest and the very purposes for which the constitution granted the power to make such laws?

Please note that I have not myself expressed any views in this post, though the very questions do themselves carry some implications.