Ethical Questions

[Emp3r0r]

In my computer ethics class we were asked to decide wether the following activities are legal. I wanted hear from the world rather than just my class.

[Emp3r0r]

Woops, can a moderator edit this poll to be "Allow multiple choice". Sorry everyone.

[-h]

I usually draw the line myself when money is involved.

In this case, I would be comfortable with every choice bar the restaurant, and selling copies of CDs/tapes that I own. Copying a rented title is fine by me, so long as the copy is discarded in the same time window that the renter allowed initially (i.e. copy it in March, then watch it on a weekend in April, delete).

I'm not sure which branch of ethics your class will focus on, but I could try my hat at an epistemological justification if you'd like.

-h

[Doom9]

afaik vbb polls only allow one out of n selections so I'm afraid this poll is quite useless.
For me money is definitely the killer factor.. once you charge other people and make a profit out of doing something illegal you deserve to be busted.

[TheXung]

How is the legal/illegal line between actions involving copying copywrighted materials fuzzy? Isn't the law rather clear in what it states to be legal and not legal? Do you really think this line is left up to individual interpretation of the law?

Perhaps what we really want to discuss is whether a law should be a law and the moral aspects behind it. But the bottom line is that at least in the US, there are laws currently in place, and they are quite clear about what is acceptable and what is not.

[mpucoder]

Actually, tuning anything for viewing in a restaurant depends on your cable/satelite license. If you have the entertainment license for that channel/package then it is legal.
One odd thing that is not legal, though, is turning on closed captions, they are forbidden for public performance.

[trodas]

mpucoder - im not a law expert, but does not the cable/satelite lincence EXPLICTELY says, that purchasing it allow you to view the copyrighted matter just for you OWN use, and not for public presentance, what is ECXACTLY what you do, when you do tune HBO channel into public place?

[Hiro2k]

@ TheXung

This thread is called Ethical Questions, Not "Is it Legal?"

Ethicics involve morals and your beliefs, that was what the poll was intended to show.

[mpucoder]

The license I referred to is designed explicitly for bars and restaurants, and is called by many names, usually the "public performance" or "public entertainment" license. It is incredibly expensive - the last time I was involved in one was 5 years ago, and it was 60 USD per month for single channel capability, more if you had the ability to view more than one channel at a time (on multiple receivers).

As for the ethical question, I wanted to point out the flaw in the question. There are legal cable hookups, and illegal ones. If the hookup is legal, how can there be an ethical problem? If I paid $60 for the ability to show HBO in public and a customer asked for it, I would put it on.

As I read the question, it doesn't seem to be about ethics, but legality, or your perception of legality. An ethical question would involve no question of legality, such as "A small computer company with a hot product has just gone public, should you do a hostile takeover to acquire the patents and copyrights, and then disolve the company" - All legal, but is it the right thing to do? (I think we know how Bill Gates would answer on that one.)

[TheXung]

This thread is called Ethical Questions, Not "Is it Legal?"

Ethicics involve morals and your beliefs, that was what the poll was intended to show

The title of the poll says:
Check all those you believe as a legal activity.

He is asking for legal interpretation:
we were asked to decide wether the following activities are legal

Legal interpretation is not up to the individual.

[Neo Neko]

Videotape a broadcast TV show to watch later - Legal and ethical under fair use laws.

Copy a DVD that you own to your laptop harddrive - You purchased a copy of the content. Again you are exercising your rights under fair use. Legal and ethical.

Burn a CD-R of a CD you own and give it as a gift - Ok now a tricky one. You will likely get all sort of answers and justification on this. To me it honestly is a bit unethical and quite possibly illegal. You could argue that you are only giving it to one person and will not get compensation for it. That might soothe your concience. But in doing this you broke both copyright and fair use. Even if it was only for the best intentions.

Make a backup copy of a CD of software you own - That is also legal and ethical. But if you have a copy protected original and it becomes un-usable it is also your right to demand a new copy upon proof of ownership from those who sold it to you.

Make a backup copy of a DVD you own - Time and format shifting. Both fall under fair use again. Everything is cool.

Tune the TV in your restaurant to HBO for patrons to watch - A whole host of things could apply to which I am not privvy to so I can't really comment here.

Make a copy of a CD you own and sell it - You burn in hell both ways if the material is copyrighted.:devil:

Make a copy of a VHS tape you rented for your own use - It is illegal as far as legality is concerned. Ethicaly you might be able to justify it for a short period of time. Perhaps a few days to a week. But you still violated copyright and fair use.

Make a copy of a VHS tape you borrowed and sell it - Again you burn in hell both ways if it is copyrighted material.:devil:

Burn a CD of someone reading Shakespeare aloud - At this point no one has license on Shakespear. Fully legal and ethical. Business would like you to pay a fee for humming a tune in the shower or picking up copyrighted material in the background of a recording. But at that point they are being to rediculous and anal.

[ppera2]

Interesting it that Emp3rOr not included in this poll currently most used file sharing via Internet.

For me is clear that it is illegal and unethical. But not only because of copyright issue. By some estimations over 40% of traffic is such transfer, and it is not good, especially for people with slow connections.
Right question is how it can be better, how can Internet be better place, where people can fast and easily find what want, without faltering and watching spam all time. Or maybe only amount of traffic is important for providers?

[ProfDrMorph]

I completely agree with Neo Neko. As long as you've got a legal license for private use and stick to that there are no problems. Neither in an ethical way or in a legal way. Let's just hope that nobody makes law to stop us from using our fair use rights! ( Like defining that getting past a copy protection like CSS is illegal ) ;) In such a case I would still be believe that using my fair use rights is ok in an ethical way even though it isn't in a legal way. ( And I don't care about what "they" say is legal and what is not. The reason I still buy DVDs and don't just copy them is that I don't want to destroy the film industry and I want to show "I like what you're doing so I'm buying your product.". That copying without having bought something is illegal wouldn't prevent me from doing it. I stop here before it get's off topic. ;) )

To the admins: please edit the poll, so that we can start voting.

[Ridgeback]

What a bunch of women, its illegal blah, blah, burn in hell, blah, blah.

Supporting the movie industry, how's this for ethics.

fellowship of the ring DVD £20 approx, 2 weeks later oh by the way we're going to release an extended version in 6 months for £25. The film industry is losing money, big deal pay Tom Cruise $10 million instead of $25 million.

The music industry - I bought the beatles red album about 12 years ago on double cassette for £15approx.
A couple of years ago I was at a friends house, and I noticed he had the Red album on double cd (I had contemplated buying it, but at £30 it was just too expensive) So I borrowed it and copied it. Now as I said it costs £30 for it on double cd yet both cds fit on one 700mb cd. That to me is a blatant shafting. I mean if I could send all of my vinyl records and cassette tapes back to the manufacturer and have them replaced with cds for a reasonable surcharge instead of the music industry wanting me to go out and purchase it again I might be more sympathetic.

On a final note, whilst I'm not quite an anti-capitalist I do have a problem with rampant greed.
Also a few years ago the UN released a paper which estimated that just over 40% of the worlds paid income goes to less than 400 people.(I wonder how many of these people are from the music and film industry) and just remember that the majority of people in the film and music industry(the ones making the real money anyway) have teams of clever graduates helping them screw the tax man, which ultimately affects those of you who pay tax as you earn(PAYE its called in the UK) which no amount of clever wrangling by an accountant can get you out of. Because these parasites aren't paying their fair share it means the rest of us can't have the education, medical, law enforcement and public sevices we should have.

I rest my case!!!

[midiguy]

I have no problem with doing any of those things listed in the poll. whether it is legal, ethical, or anything else, I really couldn't care less. This isn't going to be the end-all for the film and music industry. they make enough money already, and they are often just greedy pricks anyways. I don't want to pay ridiculous prices for stuff I can get for... nothing. If they priced DVDs and CDs more reasonably, I might actually go out and purchase them, but why should I go out and spend my hard earned money on a ridiculously priced DVD so that some jackass at Universal can upgrade his yacht. I would rather get my movies and music for free and give my money to better causes such as charity. I already support the film and movie industry enough (I go to movie theatres, concerts, and sometimes buy merchandise like posters, etc.)

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Ridgeback
What a bunch of women, its illegal blah, blah, burn in hell, blah, blah.

Be careful what you say. Someone could rightly call you for ignorance.

Originally posted by Ridgeback
Supporting the movie industry, how's this for ethics.

From the onset it is pretty clear you are determined to fail.

Originally posted by Ridgeback
fellowship of the ring DVD £20 approx, 2 weeks later oh by the way we're going to release an extended version in 6 months for £25. The film industry is losing money, big deal pay Tom Cruise $10 million instead of $25 million.

I have to strongly disagree with you here on many points. From the day the standard version was first released they made it well known that there would be another version released later for all the fluff buffs. You did not have to go out and buy the standard version. You could have waited. At least they told you and gave you the choice. It was not "You must wait till november." and "You will pay the extra money whether you wan't the fluff or not.".

Originally posted by Ridgeback
The music industry - I bought the beatles red album about 12 years ago on double cassette for £15approx.
A couple of years ago I was at a friends house, and I noticed he had the Red album on double cd (I had contemplated buying it, but at £30 it was just too expensive) So I borrowed it and copied it.

There is this little thing they teach you about in economics. It's called inflation. And well; inflation happens. To borrow from another saying. Especially over a decade or more. A basic comic book that would have cost my father a nickel now costs us almost 2 dollars or more. Now is the adjustment from 15 pounds to 30 within accounting for by inflation? I would agree that it has outpaced inflation a bit. But not enough to be a crime against humanity or injustice as you play it.


Originally posted by Ridgeback
Now as I said it costs £30 for it on double cd yet both cds fit on one 700mb cd. That to me is a blatant shafting.

40 minutes per CD??? Are you sure? I have a bit of a hard time believing that. Plus for both of them to fit on a single 700Mb CD all 26 tracks would have to be aproximatly 2min 50 seconds each. Those are some short songs.


Originally posted by Ridgeback
I mean if I could send all of my vinyl records and cassette tapes back to the manufacturer and have them replaced with cds for a reasonable surcharge instead of the music industry wanting me to go out and purchase it again I might be more sympathetic.

Sounds like you are at least a bit unsympathetic to them so is it no wonder they might pay you in kind?

Originally posted by Ridgeback
On a final note, whilst I'm not quite an anti-capitalist I do have a problem with rampant greed.

Most people only have a problem with greed in so far as they do not get what the feal they are worth or should be getting. It boils down to jealosy alot of times. Not to say that there is not such a thing as true greed. I feel you might be well aquainted.

Originally posted by Ridgeback
Also a few years ago the UN released a paper which estimated that just over 40% of the worlds paid income goes to less than 400 people.(I wonder how many of these people are from the music and film industry)

I would hazard a guess that they would at best account for maybe 2% of the total. Are you purposefully ignorring dictators of empovrished 3 world countries or others such as the middle east oil potentaits or heads of large drug cartels? Would you honestly considder musicians/actors part of the same clic as Bill Gates? The world ritchest/greedyest man?

Originally posted by Ridgeback
and just remember that the majority of people in the film and music industry(the ones making the real money anyway) have teams of clever graduates helping them screw the tax man, which ultimately affects those of you who pay tax as you earn(PAYE its called in the UK) which no amount of clever wrangling by an accountant can get you out of.

Put those teams of grads agaist the thousands more Wall Street moguls and they would be truly insignificant. Behold! I give you Enron, Tyco, etc, etc, etc, etc. Even when they loose money that make it hand over fist. Media industry eat your heart out.

Originally posted by Ridgeback
Because these parasites aren't paying their fair share it means the rest of us can't have the education, medical, law enforcement and public sevices we should have.

And what you do is honestly better because????????????????????


Originally posted by Ridgeback
I rest my case!!!

Much to soon in my oppinion. We have yet to get to any real case making evidence.

I may have done some of the same things you have done. But I have not tried to justify the unjustifyable. Immoral people should not try to judge morals or call others on them. So then is there anyone here who can?:sly:

[RadicalEd]

I like to pseudo-justify it by pretending that when I'm 18 and have a job I'll pay for everything :D

[Hiro2k]

Well put Ed. Teenagers don't have $

BTW I like your new Avatar

[Ridgeback]

Neo you are an old granny as for the L O R I never bought the first release, as for the beatles red album you calling me a liar!!!

No such thing as real greed, I think you spend too much time at this forum dude!! Pull your head out of your back-side and take a look at the real world.

As for jealousy and the rest of the drivel you've written, I won't justify such pompous crap with a reply.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Ridgeback
Neo you are an old granny

Deeper and deeper you burry yourself.

Originally posted by Ridgeback
as for the L O R I never bought the first release,

Then where's your beef? BTW it is LOTR. :sly:

Originally posted by Ridgeback
as for the beatles red album you calling me a liar!!!

Nope I was simply running numbers and stating the unlikelyhood of what you claimed. Not that it could not be true. But that it was so unlikely as to require more proof than a simple say so. A 700Mb CD can hold 800Mb of CDDA PCM audio which equals aprox. 80 minutes. If both CDs of the Red Album could indeed fit onto a single 80 minute CD then that means each CD contains roughly 40 minutes of music. That being the case and the album previously comming on two cassets with 40 minutes a casset would mean that each casset assuming they were 60 minutes each was only aprox. 3/4 full. So if indeed they are ripping people off on the CDs you were already ripped off on the cassets. Why did you not complain back then?

Originally posted by Ridgeback
No such thing as real greed, I think you spend too much time at this forum dude!!

I said no such thing. I think you spend to little time at this forum.

Originally posted by Neo Neko
Most people only have a problem with greed in so far as they do not get what the feel they are worth or should be getting. It boils down to jealosy alot of times. Not to say that there is not such a thing as true greed. I feel you might be well aquainted.

Originally posted by Ridgeback
Pull your head out of your back-side and take a look at the real world.

It is not myself but you who has the nutty aroma of poo clusters wafting from behind your unclean ears. That is quite clear. But I see no point in persuing this line of conversation. My skin is quite thick but for the forum rules and the sake of everyone else this will be the last post of this nature from any side; else I start doling out strikes.

Originally posted by Ridgeback
As for jealousy and the rest of the drivel you've written, I won't justify such pompous crap with a reply.

So you agree it is as I thought? That you have nothing constructive or insightfull to say on the topic? If you do have I encourage you to post such. And don't get all offended when people question what you say. No one here is infallable or beyond questioning. Especially someone so new here as yourself.

[TheWEF]

Originally posted by Ridgeback
Also a few years ago the UN released a paper which estimated that just over 40% of the worlds paid income goes to less than 400 people.

c'mon... (http://www.cbpp.org/9-4-99tax-rep.htm) :rolleyes:

the red album (http://whisky.wu-wien.ac.at/cgi-bin/cdfmt?cat=rock&id=7b0eae1a) does fit on one cd though.

wef.

[hakko504]

Originally posted by TheWEF
the red album (http://whisky.wu-wien.ac.at/cgi-bin/cdfmt?cat=rock&id=7b0eae1a) does fit on one cd though. It does indeed. In fact I saw a bootleg version of the red and blue albums a while ago where both albums were fitted to one double CD. When comparing playlength and number of track with the CDs in my shelves, I realised that they had cut one (1) track to make it fit. Total playing time of both doubles is something like 161,5 minutes.

[Ookami]

Hasn't this been discussed already? Sigh.

And keep this nice and clean, please. I do not like to use the strike feature, but I will use it.

Discuss with arguments, not insults.

And a end note. You can always find an excuse for everything you do. "It's the voices, Marcy. They compel me!" "The DVDs are expensive, so I have to download the latest screener release." "I'm a rebel. Ergo, I steal from the greedy industry. Really, I'm not greedy!" "***, ***** *** *?"

Now, from what movie was the last quote?

[ppera2]

Threads like this always turn so.

But even if it would some normal discussion it is pointless and useless. Nothing will change. Big industry will change nothing, law will change nothing, piracy will be nothing less.
Better discuss here about things for which is this forum intended.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by TheWEF
the red album (http://whisky.wu-wien.ac.at/cgi-bin/cdfmt?cat=rock&id=7b0eae1a) does fit on one cd though.

wef.

Originally posted by hakko504
It does indeed. In fact I saw a bootleg version of the red and blue albums a while ago where both albums were fitted to one double CD. When comparing playlength and number of track with the CDs in my shelves, I realised that they had cut one (1) track to make it fit. Total playing time of both doubles is something like 161,5 minutes.

Well I can't view the URL. But with 2 confirmations it does sound indeed as if it is the case. Good thing I am not a major Beatles fan. Seems as if people have been getting skunked on that one for decades. Was it on 2 45Rpm LP before?

Originally posted by ppera2
Threads like this always turn so.

Not always. I have seen a few that have not escalated.

Originally posted by ppera2
But even if it would some normal discussion it is pointless and useless. Nothing will change. Big industry will change nothing, law will change nothing, piracy will be nothing less.

Not so. Most people are capable of change. No matter how ingrained a view may be. And while we might not have control over the situation ourselves. We effect others who in turn effect others who can eventually bring about change. Ridgeback sounds like a rational person. He has some skewed views in my eyes. But I suspect he is capable of change.

Originally posted by ppera2
Better discuss here about things for which is this forum intended.

The kernel of this thread was in that vein. But as you said often happens it gets derailed.

[ppera2]

I thinked about some things considering film distribution in last couple days.
What is obvious is that that primary goal is to make money, make as much as possible money, better said.
Everything is subjected to that. Sceneries - dictated by big studio bosses - this is most painful part for me, and many sequels are destroyed by this practice.
Distribution: here stays that good planning is most important: we know all, first in theatres, then DVD, VHS, then pay channels, then Director's Cut, comercial TV channels etc. If they judge that moment is not best, they delay premiere.
This policy is far from be 'user-friendly' - in computer terminology.
Actually, I'm sure that it makes very good ground to piracy.

About law: it's obvious that it protects big capital - small tief is tief, big tief is businessman. Yes, nobody forces people to watch movies. At least forces not with violent methodes. But in fact yes, people is forced in much effectiver way: by lot of adverts, campaigns, by whole Western way of life.

[Ookami]

@ppera2

Just one comment... A thief is a thief. No excuses, please.

People who are buying into the "way of life" that commercials, magazines, hypes, trends are selling should blame themselves.

Everyone wants to make money, the only question is how.

BTW, 99% of the movies I've rented in the videostore are, IMO, not even worth watching... In the last few year Hollywood has even lowered their already low story standards. I had a good laugh when I watched Tomb Raider with a girlfriend, we joked how realistic the "running around in a t-shirt while snow is around you" (so the teenagers can look at a great example of gravity vs. silicon) approach...

Or now there is Insomnia in the croatian theathers, again, Hollywood ruins a very good European movie with their non-empathic approach.

Whatever, even if DVDs would be selled for 1 $ each, there still would be pirates who could download it before the release, who could make a copy for a few cents etc.

Everyone has to decide was is ethical and moral. This is purely a individual decision. We can talk forever and open even more threads, but in the end everything has been already said.

IMO, the buyer can decide what to buy. For instance, one of my favorite movies ever is Heat. But I refuse to buy the crappy DVD release with no extras, average picture and audio. If it takes years, I'll wait. This is my way of telling "I want better quality".

Sorry for the rambling. Must be one of these days.

Cheers,

Mijo.

[ppera2]

Yes, thief is thief... That's what I said :-)
As it is stated many times piracy is not equal to robbery. And it's not so much bigger in poor countries because people in them doesn't respect low, but because of simple economical rights.

Back to ethical issues: People chooses itself his way of life, what to buy etc. But what is with minors? They are best movie customers, and they swallow everything served. This is highly immoral to me, to make stupid movies for kids, just to increase earning. But what about educational aspect? I saw 4 year kid in my service who was completely dependant on cartoons. He felt in panic when heard that will be 4 days without video player. Yes, it's his parent's fault, but when he groves up, they can't isolate him from all comercials, friends etc.

Another immoral thing is pricing. DVD manufacturing is cheaper than VHS manuf. but DVD sells for much more. Why ? Because they won't give better quality for less money. It is not correct, and it is against progress. Finally that's stupid, DVD is not their invention, actually they slowed it much with copy protection, which is totally ineffective in last couple years.

[Ridgeback]

Take this pop idol crap its nothing more than a cynical plot, to screw impressionable children out of their pocket money.

It is these same children,and possibly some adults with learning difficulties(some people need protecting from themselves), who will have been screwed by the Lord of the Rings, releases. Where kids being kids just can't wait until the extended version is released, but when it is they go and buy that one aswell. Its their pocket money you can't really dictate what they spend it on, some of them have paper rounds and earn it themselves. The entertainment industry is all too aware of this.

Or maybe I'm just cynical. BTW I never said I had helped myself to copyrighted material I wasn't legally allowed to.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Ridgeback
Take this pop idol crap its nothing more than a cynical plot, to screw impressionable children out of their pocket money.

It is these same children,and possibly some adults with learning difficulties(some people need protecting from themselves), who will have been screwed by the Lord of the Rings, releases. Where kids being kids just can't wait until the extended version is released, but when it is they go and buy that one aswell. Its their pocket money you can't really dictate what they spend it on, some of them have paper rounds and earn it themselves. The entertainment industry is all too aware of this.

No argument there. But that does not justify piracy against them. Fwetch posted a link at Hydrogenaudio to an article at Rollingstone.com. http://www.rollingstone.com/news/newsarticle.asp?nid=16913&cf=399 It has some quotes from Tom Petty on the subject. He tells it like it is. But he is Tom Petty after all. :sly:

Originally posted by Ridgeback
Or maybe I'm just cynical. BTW I never said I had helped myself to copyrighted material I wasn't legally allowed to.

You never said. But had you said you would have been lying. Same as if anyone else here including myself had said.

[Ridgeback]

Buy that man a beer. Glad I supported him, and bought the Best of Tom Petty.