Another ROM/MP3s/etc. Morality vs Legality Rant


generalnmx

Playful/Fascist Mod
Joined
Apr 18, 2003
Messages
2,128
Age
43
Location
Maryland, USA
Website
www.matts-hosting.com
The only reasons for laws are:
1) try and stop stupid people from doing stupid things
2) try and stop evil people from doing evil things

Hopefully many of us on this board are part of the more enlightened. If we are all enlightened, then we wouldn't need laws, and everything could be PD, etc. Unfortunately, we aren't all enlightened, are we...

Suppose we have a society of enlightened individuals. There would be no need for laws, since everyone does what is universally morally acceptable. People could download MP3s/ROMs/etc. freely, because the creators know that they will be eventually rewarded.

Therefore, the next step in the evolution of our society is free MP3s.

I've said this before, but I think in light of this board's host, it warrents occasional revisitation:

There are two ways of looking at morality: the optimistic way and the pessimistic way. Legally, the pessimistic way is almost always chosen, because it's statistically favourable.

- Pirating and Distribution of MP3s/ROMs/etc.
Optimistic: They don't know what will happen to them.
Pessimistic: It's naive to think evil will not befall them.
Optimistic: It's up to society to adapt.
Pessimistic: Society is not ready.

- Downloading MP3s/ROMs/etc.
Optimistic: Only people with good intentions will download.
Pessimistic: Yeah right.

Unfortunately, many of the times the pessimist is true, and the law should side with the pessimist until society is enlightened. However, there is one crucial point to note: downloading MP3s/ROMs/etc. only takes one individual. Many people try to relate downloading to stealing, but the problem is that downloading digital copies represents an infinite domain, while "stealing" can only take place in a finite domain. Of course, the problem can be redefined to a finite state, but that redefinition has to be warrented. OK, so let's define a problem:

"The marketplace has 10 apples for sale. Penniless Jim is hungry, and takes 1 apple."

Is this morally correct on all bounds? Some people, out of sympathy for poor Jim, will take a rather "greedy" approach to morality - well, poor Jim is so pitiful, he deserves that apple. But what if the family that ran that marketplace needed that money to survive, what then? Here, we are not given enough information to fully comprehend the complete ramifications of the situation, so we can only apply this "greedy" solution. Let's look at the problem like this:

1) The Marketplace has a finite supply of apples.
2) The Marketplace deserves money for providing their service of supplying apples.
3) Each apple represents a percentage of profit for the Marketplace.
4) Jim has no money.
5) Jim is hungry, but not starving.

OK, so let's try a similiar problem...

"The marketplace has an infinite supply of apples for sale. Penniless Jim is hungry, and takes 1 apple."

I can't think of a situation where this is morally wrong, theoretically. The key here is not to attack a straw man - obviously this cannot exist in the real world, but that isn't the point of the problem. Making an infinite problem into a finite problem without cause is not logically sound. Let's look at it like this:

1) The Marketplace has an infinite supply of apples.
2) The Marketplace deserves money for providing their service of supplying apples.
3) Each apple does NOT represent a percentage of profit for the Marketplace.
4) Jim has no money.
5) Jim is hungry, but not starving.


Let's jump onto the problem at hand:

"A MP3 of a popular musician is available for download without their consent. Jim downloads their music."

Is there something morally wrong with this problem? Well, I can already see some holes - what does the artist get out of this? Will Jim still want to buy the artist's album after listening to the MP3s?

1) The Internet has an infinite supply of MP3s.
2) The artist deserves money for providing their service of supplying their music.
3) Each piece of music does NOT represent a percentage of profit for the creator.

Morally, there's no reason Jim should be downloading that MP3. So let's modify it:

"A MP3 of a popular musician is available for download without their consent. Jim downloads their music. Jim cannot afford to buy their music."

1) The Internet has an infinite supply of MP3s.
2) The artist deserves money for providing their service of supplying their music.
3) Each piece of music does NOT represent a percentage of profit for the creator.
4) Jim can't afford to buy their music.

I think you can see the main argument I am trying to convey. If your action does not directly effect anything in a negative way, then it cannot be morally wrong. If Jim cannot afford to buy their music, then, based on an entirely moral why shouldn't he be allowed to download it, assuming downloading it does not decrease his desire to possibly buy their music int he future?

Here-in lies the debate of Morality vs Legality - we aren't evolved enough as a society to be based on a universal morality instead of legality, but we should be evolved enough to agknowledge when decisions may be morally acceptable even when they are not legally.
 
I don't think that it's posible to do anything with ROMs that is 100% inderectly related to the company's money:

1) If you have/have access to a comp you prolly also have enough money to buy a game or you have enough money coming to buy one sometime.
2) If you plan to buy a game once you get enough money, and you DL it forst, it seems moral, but what if you hate it so much that you don't buy it once you can?
 
the situation seems to me more like jimmy has the money and is hungry, goes to a place with infinite apples, takes an apple without paying and goes to spend his money elsewhere (goes to a prostitute or whatever ). Harm done to the apple place ? Not morally as taken for the individual BUT:

now hundreds of jimmys come along, do the same thing, the place can´t make any profit and has to close down. All apples rot...
 
If Jim downloaded an mp3 of a certain artist wasn't because he didn't want to spend some money but he probably wouldn't buy it if he coulden't download it.

This's another point of view.
 
In my view, it is morally wrong to expect to make money out of Music which is essentially an art form. People would still make music becasue they love it and are passionate about it. there would be no different layers of society, where people can/cannot afford the art and the Music industry would not be so crowded with shit.
It seems ridiculous that i cannot share a few ones and zeros on a disk which make air particles move between friends.
Why should a person be allowed to gather the apples and basically hold them ransom from the rest of society in order to make a profit. If they need other things from their profit, society could provide them with it.
Society as a whole should make, own and equally distribute all the apples, then the everybody would have enough food.
Do people honestly believe that people would not make music if their were no financial reward??

You do need to have MP3's/warez/games to make society equal and allow everybody to access the same enlightening forms of art.
 
I don't think that it's posible to do anything with ROMs that is 100% inderectly related to the company's money:

1) If you have/have access to a comp you prolly also have enough money to buy a game or you have enough money coming to buy one sometime.

The idea here is the intent of the action. Just because someone has money doesn't mean they can afford to buy whatever they want.

2) If you plan to buy a game once you get enough money, and you DL it forst, it seems moral, but what if you hate it so much that you don't buy it once you can?

By that same logic, renting the game, then not buying it afterwards, is also immoral. In fact, so is playing it over someone else's house, or listening to their CDs before buying one of your own.

the situation seems to me more like jimmy has the money and is hungry, goes to a place with infinite apples, takes an apple without paying and goes to spend his money elsewhere (goes to a prostitute or whatever ). Harm done to the apple place ? Not morally as taken for the individual BUT:

now hundreds of jimmys come along, do the same thing, the place can´t make any profit and has to close down. All apples rot...

The marketplace has an infinite supply of apples in that problem, so no matter how many jimmys (jimmies?) come along to take an apple, they will still have the same number of apples to sell to potentional customers. If no one in their area has enough money to buy their apples, then they have a bigger problem then poor old Jimmy.

Oh, and you NEED food to live, you don't NEED MP3/ROM/WAREZ to...

Red herring. Consider in this case Jimmy doesn't need the apple to live. That's why I said "he is hungry but not starving". You can modify the problem as needed - say Jimmy wants to write a love letter to his fiance, but doesn't have enough money to buy some paper.
 
if he can't afford the paper then where did he get the pen?

Missing the point. Let me generalize the problem:

1) Jimmy wants some item.
2) Jimmy has no money for which to purchase the item.
4) The Marketplace has an infinite supply of the item.
5) The Marketplace sells the item, and does not give it away for free.

Obviously, profit from selling the item is not linked to the percentage of the items sold to the items in stock, since there is an infinite number of items in stock.
 
There's one thing I think you are missing.

When you download an MP3, you are not stealing that song. The song is copied onto your HD, not like when you're stealing a CD, you're also stealing the material it's made on, which is a much more complicated process than what it takes to copy the digital version of the song. The song is multiplying, not beaing stolen.

And music is an extremely old commercial art form. 'Art' is something that's been a commercial venture for many centuries in many different societies. Musicians have performed for people for money for many centuries. It was until the advent of recordable audio did it become such a huge commercial industry. And people pay money for painted art and other such works.
 
Jimmy should just take the apple, in fact he should just take all the apples and give them away to everybody that wants/needs them.......then the Marketplace will not be able to function properly and an alternative will have to be sought..... eg- the state.

btw.... i never said that commercially selling art was a new invention. All i said was that the commercial market is not the reason why music and art exists and even without the commercial aspect, music and art would still thrive, maybe even moreso than now.
 
[Ironic Mode]
Wow, jimmy is a bit of a sad case. All he wants is an apple and some MP3s to listen to while he eats it.

What I do have to ask, if this guy (presumably homeless) cannot afford a single apple from the market, then what is he doing on the internet downloading MP3s. I bet he's draining the state benefits. Damn guy, deserves all he gets. :angry:

In all reality though, I think the AIAA (Apple Industry Association of America) should sue his ass in order to make an example of him. They should blame him and people like him for the generaly low quality of the apples.

In order to try and still use the old market-style distrobution method, they would create a way so you must buy and eat the apple on-site, you would not be able to take the apple away to enjoy when or whereever you like. You also would not be able to sell this apple to someone else. They would sell you the apples in prepackaged boxs of 13 apples of which only 2 or 3 are any good. The rest would leave a horrible Metallic(a) aftertaste.

How's about those apples?
[/Ironic Mode]
 
You should also not be allowed to cut the apple up and use it in different formats- such as sauce, pie or juice. This would help to stop the evil apple-sharing commuinty that has been thriving at such events as school fairs, dinner times and charity events.
 
Back
Top