| GlingGling said: The philosophy put forth by John Locke resonates with common sense. Boiling down to whatever is produced by a person's labor is their own. Modern copyright law agrees. I think two things complicate copyright and the associated morality: modern mega corporations and technology. I can use indie developers as an example of my own beliefs. Pirating from an indie videogame developer in my own is an injustice. The line of labor and property is obvious. Pirating such work is just about as clear as stealing food from an individual, or violating a natural right of man. Pirating say, NBA Live published by EA, isn't as clear. NBA Live, while having been produced by individuals, is not owned by an individual. It is owned by a corporation. Under the US law corporations are seen as individuals and thus awarded the same legal rights. Whatever the legal definition, EA is not a person, and revenue is not shared equally amongst its contributing employees. The line of ownership and property is ambiguous. Who am I stealing from? This is not an excuse, but a complication in the morality of piracy. Technology adds further layers of ambiguity and disconnect between pirater and producer. The internet is often called the "wild west". There is a high level of anonymity, to a fault. A person can get away with grievous injustices on the internet. Not only can people get away with this stuff, but they can feel ok doing it because all they're really doing is looking at a monitor and clicking a mouse. Again, not an excuse. If people really think about it and connect the dots they'll realize their actions have more or less direct consequences. Lastly, and an issue I have personal issues with is the ambiguity of digital information: lacking intrinsic value, lack of single ownership. The fact that digital rights management exists speaks to the conceptual ownership issues surrounding digital content. And why am I allowed to back up things for myself? What happens if my original gets destroyed? Can I still lend my backup, the only form of that content that I own, to a friend? Again, not excuses but added ambiguity confusing the direct line of property and ownership. What it adds up to is that a person can be sitting at their computer and feel so far away from their victim, with so little risk, that they begin to think there may not even be a victim. But piracy still, in some way, violates someone's rights. |
NBA Live, while having been produced by individuals, is not owned by an individual. It is owned by a corporation. Under the US law corporations are seen as individuals and thus awarded the same legal rights. Whatever the legal definition, EA is not a person, and revenue is not shared equally amongst its contributing employees. The line of ownership and property is ambiguous. Who am I stealing from? This is not an excuse, but a complication in the morality of piracy.
Yes, but the corporation is created, as John Locke established in his first chapter, CONSENT. The employees have consented to having their labor being attributed to the group, in exchange to receive compensation, and to access the capital of the group.
If the employee believes he is not getting a fair wage, then labor economics comes into play. But as long as their is CHOICE, the choice to work for another man, or not, then you cannot be a slave.
And who are you steeling from? The whole group. The income of the group is paid to its employees, its managers, its stock owners.
Again, not an excuse.
Yup
Lastly, and an issue I have personal issues with is the ambiguity of digital information: lacking intrinsic value, lack of single ownership. The fact that digital rights management exists speaks to the conceptual ownership issues surrounding digital content.
This is an interestign issue. I don't know the laws, but I will assume that the corporation, obviously consenting by doing business in this country and by respecting the democratic system we have, give consent for owners of the property, to produce and reproduce the product, as long as it is not distributed to those who did not obtain it through the production of the corporation. But again, EVERYTHING is centered around CONSENT.
But piracy still, in some way, violates someone's rights.
Yes.
