[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by taosaur

A lot of people are just not that concerned with the ethicality, because they attach so little moral weight to the issue. They're as likely to wrestle with themselves over the moral ambiguities of jaywalking.

Quite obviously.

Wonder if the ethics would be of more interest if it was their time and effort being taken advantage of?? My guess would be probably so.

Originally Posted by taosaur

The deprivation of artists and the death of industries is not a concern because it's not a remotely likely outcome. The only industry that ever suffered significant harm from filesharing was the RIAA, and they are still alive and well, not because they killed P2P, but because they're adapting their business model to the new reality. That reality is not defined by fiesharing itself, but by the new distribution channels and consumer expectations that P2P forced them to address.

I agree the death of industries is not very likely. They will adapt just like the music industy did.

On the other hand, the deprivation of artists is happening every time someone gains illegal access to a book. Regardless of whether the person would have bought the book in the first place or not. Please note, I specifically chose the term gains illegal access. I'm not talking about someone borrowing a book from a friend or a library as that is perfectly legal.

Now, I agree that file sharing is likely to increase a budding artists exposure and thereby increase their eventual compensation. However, that method of exposure should be at the discretion of the artist. If they do not wish to partake of that then no one has the constitutional right(as is seemingly suggested by some) to pirate a copy for themselves simply because they don't like the publishing company or the way business is done or for any other reason.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

The more practical debate is not whether filesharing is good or bad, but what are its actual effects, what does it mean for the future, and what action if any is warranted on the part of media companies, creators, and/or the law.

Totally agree, that is the more practical debate. However, what is practical is not always what is right.

Hopefully a solution can be worked out that is both practical and does the "right" thing by all concerned.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Well no, no it's not. Referring to for-profit bootlegging as piracy is a bit of a stretch, and filesharing bears only an associative connection to bootlegging. "It's just bad" is no argument at all. Filesharing media against the authors' wishes is obviously not a perfectly wholesome activity, but in terms of moral outrages it falls somewhere south of littering. Most network peers are not "pirates," as if it were a lifestyle, but media consumers who take advantage of both licit and illicit means.

I did say I did not put piracy for personal use on par with many other morally questionable activities didn't I?

However, if you take the logic that "it isn't wrong because it isn't as bad as x, y or z" then you can almost always find something worse. Where do you draw the line?