Re: in a quandry

[Wes Morgan <wesm at libretech_org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 22 July 2003 7:07 am, John Davis wrote:
> Well said, Don, as always.
>
> Wes, when you bring up "natural law", you're asking for a philosophical
> discussion. The term means something very specific - it's a term that
> refers to moral absolutes that everyone is beholden to because the law is
> "natural" - i.e., knowledge of it is with you when you're born.

Well, then I'll stop using the term, my fault, sorry. How does "obvious 
action" strike you?

>
> Regardless, all the arguments you're making don't wash. Basically you're
> arguing that because copying digitial music is easy, this makes it moral.

No, again, I'm not arguing that. What I am arguing should really be split into 
three different statements to avoid this recurring confusion I'm creating.

Aspect the first: Despite the fact that it is illegal to copy CD's, tons of 
people do it anyway. These people are not morally depraved low-lifes who 
would just as soon steal gas or groceries. So, we need to ask ourselves, why 
is copying music any different? If it *is* stealing, then why do these people 
engage in the act? I would argue that it is because it is different from what 
they know of stealing in one crucial area:
According to their perception of the situation, No one has lost anything, they 
paid for the music, and now someone else has gained something. This act of 
sharing, to them, is a good thing (and rightly so). However, they are either 
ignorant of the fact that the artist has lost something (assuming the person 
receiving the copy would have bought one if they had not received a copy for 
free, which is a highly erroneous assumption, but it makes my argument more 
difficult, so I hope you will allow it) or they simply do not care. The 
latter is certainly immoral. However, sharing music comes as naturally to 
people as sharing food or sharing anything else that they have purchased or 
earned in some fashion. Yes, they are ignorant of the fact (or don't care; 
immorally) that they have not really purchased the music, but only a license 
to listen to that music in certain ways and at certain times with certain 
equipment. But that license is part of the law, and laws can be changed or 
not taken advantage of (in this case I mean the artist chooses not to utilize 
the traditional laws in favor of an alternative model). Why should we change 
the law or set up alternatives to the law (for the benefactors of the law, 
where the law does not require them to abide by its model) besides the fact 
that sharing is an obvious act? I'll leave that to the next section:

Aspect the second: Sharing music is, in and of itself, a moral good. Apart 
from any laws or compensation systems, sharing is preferred over not sharing 
from a moral standpoint (for many reasons I've already gone into and are 
fairly obvious any way).

Aspect the third: It is possible, in theory, to set up a system under which 
the moral good and obvious action of sharing music is respected and allowed 
*and* compensates the artist for their work. This removes the immoral aspect 
of the obvious action while allowing the obvious action (which is good since 
it will occur anyway), and it has the fringe benefit of allowing the moral 
good of sharing. Since this is possible in theory, why not try it? This is 
all I'm saying.

Again, I'm *not* arguing for people to copy music that the artist has asked 
them not to copy. I myself don't do it, and I don't think others should do 
it. I am also not arguing that *anything* which is an "obvious act" should 
not be outlawed or considered immoral. I do *not* think that murder should be 
legal because it happens even though it's against the law, or anything else 
that fits this analogy. What I *am* arguing is that when something is an 
inherent moral good (such as sharing) *and* it is something that is going to 
happen anyway, then we should re-examine the purpose of the law that makes it 
illegal. In this case, the purpose is to ensure that the artist gets 
compensated for their work, and that's a noble purpose. However, because the 
thing being outlawed is both an obvious action and a moral good, should we 
not then try to see if it is possible to retain the noble purpose of the law 
and allow the moral good/obvious action? The answer seems obvious to me.

<snip />

- -- 
"We need to consider the reality of what God wants and how broken the world 
is, and the gap between them, and let a healthy discontent take over our 
souls so that we say, by God's grace and power, I will not quit because it 
matters. It matters." - Roberta Hestenes
- ----------------------------------
Libretech.org - Technology Is Free (http://www.libretech.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/HciRI89ooLagmnQRAr1MAJ9rt20Tu8Px+mw05Q8yfy3cY1QV/gCdHmsX
1G8ENrFoaGoeL4jlIBaVjts=
=rNfs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/