[TGS]

I need to preface what I say by making clear that I have no strong views one way or the other on people obtaining materiel from, what we might for convenience agree to refer to as, the Darknet.

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

What I think a lot of people object to is the "dog in the manger" behaviour of publishers, who own the rights to things that people want, which they will neither let people have, nor benefit from themselves. It seems to me a pretty well established moral objection, which is behind the argument that "orphaned" works should enter the public domain.

If I understand correctly there might be three sorts of material from that get downloaded from the Darknet in descending order of naughtiness*:

1. Material that is available in a variety of media and or formats but the individual wants to get if for nothing if they can
2. Material that is available in a variety of media and/or formats, but the individual wants it in a different media and/or format
3. Material that is not currently available - new or second-hand - in any format

I guess in all case we are talking about material that is in copyright and that someone owns the rights to.

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

So, I don't think that it is a straightforward "I'm going to steal it if you won't sell it to me" situation, but one where people feel that publishers are in the wrong in withholding material, and that they have some justification in obtaining it when there is no attempt by others to benefit from it.

This is the situation that, I guess, corresponds with 3 above.

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

My point is that there is a rational moral position that one could adopt in support of using the darknets to obtain material that nobody is prepared to sell you. We can debate whether that position is the best one to adopt or not, but I think it unreasonable to belittle it as childish, or as craving justification for known naughtiness.

This seems to amount to the the argument that if someone exercises their rights in a way that I don't like there might be a rational moral position which would give some moral warrant to me negating their rights.

You might be right on this - but if you are I don't see how we separate 1 and 2 from 3 - some rights-holder who wants me to pay £130 for a copy of an academic book may well be exercising their rights in a way that I don't like, and if we accept the argument that the exercise of rights in ways we don't like justifies the negation of those rights, then I would be justified in downloading it from the Darknet. If the book could have been had for £10 I would have happily paid it, but it's ridiculous to charge me £130. There's no way I can afford £130 so I'm going to have it away from some file hosting site if I can find it.

You might argue that the exercising of rights which results in a book costing £130 has, in itself, a different moral status from the exercise of rights that results in a book not being available, and that, therefore, how we respond to those exercising of rights can justifiably be different. But you would have to argue this, I don't think it's self-evident.

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

The whole point of copyright is to grant people temporary exclusive rights to the benefits of some work, in exchange for it becoming public domain afterwards. The point is not to sit on the rights and not let anyone access the work at all. So, I think that there's something worth exploring here, as those supporting new rules for "orphaned" works advocate.

Unless there is legislation to specify how rights are to be exercised, or a judiciary later clarifies through case law the proper exercise of particular right, then, if we put our faith in a rights-based legal/ethical system, it probably behoves us to continue to respect rights however they are exercised.

Of course, what we haven't really looked at is the argument that not only is 3 justified, but so is 2 - which is a position I think a number of people occupy, and in comparison with which I find 1 even more difficult to distinguish.

Now, it might be that this whole argument is about how pissed the way in which a publisher exercises their rights makes us feel. Believe me, it doesn't compare with how pissed paying £130 for a book makes me feel.

*In using the word naughtiness I'm not being (entirely) flippant - I probably think that any downloading from the Darknet falls at the naughtiness - rather than the gross moral turpitude - end of the moral scale - none of it matters very much and most of it doesn't matter at all.