Argh! Is this stealing? Piracy, Ethics, etc.

[Monica]

I'm not saying that at all. I don't care for labels because they can be misinterpreted. I'd rather explore the essence of what's happening than stick a convenient label on it. Technically, the music itself is not being stolen (see previous post) but potential profits are being stolen. However, even that is not so simple.

I have to draw the line at this point, because if we cannot say in any definitive way that the person B in my example did or did not steal something, what's the point of examining anything more abstractly? We could debate the topic endlessly in abstract ways, but why?

Um, because it's thought-provoking and fun?  

Furthermore, shouldn't the problem that your methodology cannot find a conclusive answer to my example be proof enough that either it is wrong, or needs more work to produce one?

Without a conclusive answer? In that case, then I guess I'm in good company, since Q'uo often gives inconclusive answers to difficult questions. Recently, there was one on drug use. (We have a new thread for it, so please, let's discuss that over there!) ...which was very inconclusive indeed. But their response allowed for much introspection and though-provoking discussion of abstract concepts!

Perhaps we have different goals in this discussion. You seem to imply that you are seeking a conclusive answer. I'm not; nor do I think a conclusive answer is even possible. I am seeking to explore different angles to this issue, so that we may all have much to contemplate in making our own personal choices in these ethical dilemmas.

The difference is permission was not given!

I disagree. I don't think every person who has ever authored a book or recorded a song has consciously explored all the nuances of getting their work published/recorded, contemplated all the possible scenarios, and explicitly given permission.

I think the reason we're not connecting on this point is that you seem to be focused on the legality, and I am looking at the individual artist, who may or may not even be fully aware of all the legal ramifications.

Again, I am attempting to view this thru the lens of the Law of One, not just US copyright laws.

In terms of what I have in my possession, in the case of the cd, I have the music to enjoy over and over again, whereas in the case of the book, I only read it once. True enough. BUT, in terms of profits being denied the artist, they are exactly the same!

So do you feel that one validates the other? Is the profit being denied in both cases what makes them equal? I do not agree with this.

No, I don't think one validates the other. I'm not attempting to validate anything. (Again, I've never even downloaded a single song!) I am simply offering a comparison, for the purpose of stretching our thinking and considering the essence of what's realy happening in such a scenario.

Perhaps you are right, and no one is being harmed. But you cannot consequently say that downloading those artists' albums from the internet is not stealing. It may be justified stealing, but it is still stealing, which is my main theme here.

I respect your opinion. I never said it was or wasn't stealing. I said it is not any less or more stealing than other actions which may or may not be legally acceptable.

I do not feel that hearing music at a friends house is stealing if you do not pay the artist for it. That falls under fair use...

You mean the legal term 'fair use?'

I'm sorry if I seem evasive. I just don't think this issue can be reduced to a simple yes or no regarding the question of whether it's stealing.

I must disagree. I think that if one can not find a yes or no answer to this type of question, and especially in the overly simplified example that I presented in post #62, then we're in for a whole lot more trouble when we encounter anything remotely more complicated or morally challenging.

And again I respectfully disagree. We are heading for an SMC, in which we will all be sharing a great deal of our thoughts/feelings etc. I think this technological dilemma is indicative of the passing of the seasons...just as we've outgrown blindly believing what our religious leaders tell us, so too are we outgrowing simple, 'conclusive' black-and-white rules about issues too complex to neatly fit.

---

For the former, I am all about justification and think it has a real value. As I've mentioned before it could well be that music piracy is a totally justified thing to do. It may be bringing about the change the music industry needs, liberating the repressed musicians, etc. etc. However my fundamental argument is that it is still stealing.

...If you support music piracy, then wear it like a badge of honor. Stand behind it unflinchingly.  "I am steaing music, because..." and what follows may make all the moral difference. I am reminded of a website, The Pirate Bay. I do not agree with the premise of the website, but I have a profound respect for those who operate it for their fearlessness to stand behind what they believe in. Giving their website that very name is in itself amazing. Now I do not know if they themselves will admit that what they are facilitating is stealing, but surely it is.

I do understand your point and agree with it essentially. I feel the same way about controversial issues like eating meat and abortion! (mentioned in passing only! please let's not get into those on this thread, ok?)

But the problem is that we don't all agree with your definition, just as not everyone agrees that killing animals for meat is murder. It's easy for a vegetarian to say "But it's still murder!" but not everyone is going to agree with that statement. So I contend that it cannot be reduced to such a simplification for everyone. For you, sure, and that's ok. I hope you can understand that not everyone thinks of it the same way you do.

peace

Edit: Corrected a glaring typo