POLL: Is burning a CD ethical?

Remove all ads!

Well as far as "Ethics" go, when you STEAL music, programs, etc., even if you are rebelling against big business, someone is still going to end up paying for it. Now as far as I can remember, stealing is not considered ethical.

 

Now Look, I don't remember hearing of a single person here having stolen anything. As far as I know, all of the music has been freely given by the owner to another, irrespective of a particular country's copyright laws. Nothing in the ethical sense of the word (which is what we're talking about right?) has been stolen. Is something only shared if your own portion is diminished? Does your love of a parent or partner decrease when you give your love to your child? It is ridiculous to say it is only ethical to share something if you in turn have lost it. We all share this planet, and everything we use is eventually returned from whence it came. These people should be applauded for their loving attitudes, to give something freely at your own expense (that is, the cost of the original CD, which was bought at some point, the cost of the hardware to burn it, the blank CD). Don't tell me you are depriving someone from their all-important profits (as if that should even be signifigant) because I guarantee that in the majority of these cases, if the music or similar wasn't available for free, it simply wouldn't be listened too. People get free material which they think mediocre, yet still buy from those they think it worth buying from. I myself certainly buy the games I like to play.

Now if I have bought something, I see nothing morally apprehensive in sharing that experience with others, without depriving myself of it, yet still at my own expense mind you.

Why is this considered wrong? How is it ever stealing? It may be morally wrong to *sell* such burnt CD's, but even this isn't stealing, as the CD came from somewhere.

Edit- I just want to make it clear I don't listen to any music, bought or burnt, I comment on this only philosophically as a neutral party.

 

I've given a lot of thought to this. I only originally posted because I saw it as an inconsequential matter, but I see that many people are taking their views seriously, which is always a good thing, to stay by your morals I mean.

Thus, while I still assert that the actual act in itself is in no way wrong, it is true that you have (presumably someone down the line) purchased a CD, knowing that the agreement to do so (ie, the copyright laws) was that you do not make any copies - therefore, to keep your honour, it is only right that you do not distribute the material in a way which breaches these laws, whether you think they are right or not.

In this manner I do agree with you Blackthorne TA, but what of this; If the morality of the issue is here induced by it's legality, what is your decision ethically, in a case where the legal aspect is removed, vis-a-vis where the CD is bought in a place where no copyright laws exist, placed for download on the internet and obtained from there, where an album is burnt and given to another - even though the album is available for sale in that new country, and copyright laws exist (but only in this particular country)?

 

You'd have to go further I think because that can happen today just by shipping cd's to a nation without a real government and selling them on the street corner. Imagine there is no copyright law in the world then. Well, it would be replaced by contract law then - individual contracts for each cd purchased. This wouldn't be as effective of course as copyright law because you'd be forced to find where the breach happened. That's not what you really want either though I take it because it's still tied to the law and you're wanting to imagine a situation where there would be no law to impact our decision I think. Am I fairly characterizing your hypothetical?

So, imagine a world where there was no law regarding any protection of a recorded piece of music etc. I believe, and I think others agree (though not all I'm sure), such a world is one where there would be a great deal less available.

That is the entire premise of copyright law, or contract law, or however you want to protect these recorded pieces of work. The idea is that by protecting them you are creating an environment conducive to encourage the production of a variety of music, writing, etc. (this debate could easily be translated to buying a book, scanning it, and putting it on the internet).

So, I'm saying you can't divorce the legal from the moral because the legal is designed on a utilitarian belief that we should create a system which fosters creativity. The idea is that this is not only good for the individuals protected but also for the greater good of our society. The rights of the creators and owners are protected but also the system makes society as a whole richer.

So, the morality and the legal are tied together. We may argue that the law might not adequately address the moral concerns but it, in my opinion, reflects a moral decision; a social contract if you will.

When someone breaks this social contract, they undermine the creative environment society wants to engender as well as taking someone's individual work and using it in a manner they agreed not to. You earlier termed this as a lack of honour, and that's a fair way of putting it I think. But it's more than that as well I think as you can be thought to be harming the greater good as well (down the road at least).

 

In my mind, if the author of the CD is not getting payment for something that he has created, then burning the CD is not ethical. For me, it simply boils down to the golden rule.

 

I like the way that the argument keeps turning on the artist and the creative side of the equation. But this is really about the record companines(media giants) and not the artists nor the creative enviornment. It is about those who have been benefiting the most from the current system and are refusing to move out of the way of technology. It reminds me of that Dylan line: "If you can't lend a hand, then move out of the road, for the times they are..."

That really was the point of the link that I posted:

"The record companies have completely stymied the efforts of those who wish to make a legal method of purchasing music over the net. They are stopping every attempt with an almost fanatical fervor. Why? Because once there is a way to purchase music on the net, the record companies go away, as does the RIAA, and the extortion money that the industry lovingly leeches from helpless artists."

Who really is stealing? Of course, big business will always have its supporters.

 

Fair enough, Chandos, and I agree that the music industry giants hose artists over, but I stand by my statement as things stand. If an artist can record a song and then sell it over the net, though, I'd be happy with that! The artist gets paid for his work, the consumer gets what he wants, no problem.

 

I think I agree with LKD in that I think Manus asked a question and we kinda gave our opinions. Manus' question was a philosophical sort and I think we answered it that way. Not sure how that's simply being a big business apologist. Everything we said would apply if artist's sold their stuff directly over the internet:

Artist cuts out record labels and sells songs over the internet. Someone takes this and then makes it available to everyone else for free even though the artist doesn't want him or her to. Is this ok?

I say no for 2 reasons, 1)I think the artist has certain rights in how his stuff is used so he can make a buck and 2) I think such a system destroys a culture which promotes creativity and would benefit us all.

So, even if record labels are cut out copyright law is needed for the same ethical reasons stated above imo. Protect the owner and help society.