A Moral Question?

[Harbor_Pilot]

This certainly is a lively topic. I wanted to say, "Well Debated", but there is not much debate leaning to justification of theft, stealing, piracy and the like. Instead, I think the discussion of marginal issues is good. Marginal meaning sometimes one is not certain, or has to think about and consider laws, morals, values, ethics, and the impact they may have on others.

I think we know right from wrong, and left from right, (although some are confused by port and starboard).

Should we wrong our neighbor? How do we live with that? Seems a few find a way to. It is I that looks at I in the mirror when I awaken, or see my reflection in the water. ~ For me, I like to have a good feeling when I see that.

One (**) of the 20th century US Presidents was quoted as saying, "When in doubt, do the right thing". I try to let that quote guide me in life. Temptation is always and ever present. Rise above it. Be the better person. It will reward you. Maybe in time, or after the end here.

There is some irony in my words. From this guy that suggests the concept of building flame throwers to ward off very rare (***) but potential pirates.

** I do not want to misstate which one, and I do not have the reference handy at the moment.

*** Very Rare - 1) Not encounter frequently. Rarely. 2) "Roasted by the Flames of Improvised Protective Devices", but slightly, "pink in the middle".

~ ~ ~

In other words ~ The sea terms of past:

ARRGH MATE: Doest thou have a desire to walk the plank, and be bound and confined to Davey Jones' Locker for an eternity? Than, you Scoundrel! Stead your course and thee shall run ah-GROUND!

~ ~ ~

OR, if an action is questionable, why is that?

We, you and I, KNOW the answer.

The wrong answer always has a justification, and a lot of associated words and extensive explanations. The correct choice stands on its' own.

[SeaVenture]

Originally Posted by Auzzee

....But I will gladly pass on my mother's recipes for parkin, for anyone who likes ginger cakes.

David.

Sounds lovely. Please do!

Normandie

[Auzzee]

Recipe posted under "Poop Deck". Scroll down below crewfinders on the forum's content page.

David

[Piotrek]

Hello.

We can analyse this problem a bit more.

1. Copying intelectual property is not stealing. It is copyright violation. The difference is, that original owner of the item (book, CD etc.) doesn't loose its belonging.

2. However pirating goes under copyright law, it is quite different then publishing someone else work under my name (old school copyright violation). As a pirate I don't want to say, that I am an author of the given software/music/movie.

2. It is much closer to manufacturing patented designs, or using trademark without permission. The original author sufferes because potential customers buy pirate version instead original. It is the case if we speek about music or movies, but not so in case of software. Software is more like a tool than piece of art. If program is very popular, it becomes standard, and in world of software only standard programs survive (i.e. MS Windows, Office). It is possible, that pirating accually helps software companies in the same way, as "free samples" boost sallary. It is easy to count how much illegal programs cost, and assume, that all this would be paid to the authors if there was no piracy, but it is clearly false assumption. Most of illegal programs would never be bought legally.

3. However pirating is illegal in many countries, it doesn't mean, that it is immoral. Those are two different things. For example, according to Immanuel Kant, moral thing is to do to others, what we would like to be a general rule. If I'd like to share my intelectual work for free, and I want world without software corporations, I'm morally fair pirating. If I'd like other people pirating my work, I do no evil pirating myself.

4. If we assume, that evil is what harm others, then we must proof, that copying given program harmed it's authors, to say that pirating is evil. I can imagine situation, where I can't afford given program. In this case I wouldn't pay any money to the authors anyway, so they don't loose anything, if I copy their program. Even more: the authors don't loose and I gain, so total utility increases and thus, according to utilitarian philosophy, this deed is morally good. The question remains, when I can't afford something. I could take a loan, or save for couple of years...

If I can afford the program, but instead of buying I copy CD, I do harm to authors, but even then, if my gain is bigger, then theirs loss, I'm still moral, according to utilitarians.

Copying original, and giving illegal copy as a present is in my opinion not very elegant. It's better to give the original and save a copy. This way giver is the only person breaking the law. And if we don't have the original, maybe bottle of wine is better gift...

philosophy...

[Swagman]

Im sorry piotrec,

Your argument is elegant, but not logical.

For sure, moral values differ by culture, location but most importantly, by circumstance.

If there was no way to survive other than to steal food (and there usually is but lets just say in the one circumstance there is not) then stealing food to feed self and family would, IMHO, be morally OK.

But get real. 'Cruisers' are not poor.

They choose their lifestyle and whilst most are not flush - each surely does not expect thie rchosen lifestyle to be subsidised by being allowed to duplicate property that actually belongs to others?

Most cruisers have the werewithall to afford the products the need. In some cases it might mean they'd dip into their kitty - or have to do some work to get the funds. They have 'relatively easy' alternates to stealing.

You also try to argue that it is morally right to be able to make a judgement that one can take that property - simply because you think the author is no worse off?

On this basis - you'd obviously not be upset if someone coming upon your yacht securely moored up for the day, took it out for a sail? Surely no loss to you - ergo he has the moral right?

Tosh.

And finally as I've said before, there is no doubt manufacturers are having to invest in more complex security mechanisms to halt people who think as you do. And all the other 'suckers' like us who pay the asking price, end up paying for that.

What moral right do you actually think you have to increase the costs of products others want to buy?

IMHO pure and simple - philosophy does not rule on this - morally it is wrong.

Cheers

JOHN

[JeanneP]

Many years ago, when my brain was quicker and computers were simpler, I wrote the first program accepted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for electronically submitting to the state invoices for services rendered.

Big deal. But it is a big deal in that until my program came along, a lot of small service providers had no choice but to do without what turned out to be a significant benefit to the operation of their business - getting paid promptly and correctly!

Of course I was entitled to be paid by anyone who used my program! If they didn't want to pay for it, why should they use it and obtain the benefits that it offered? They had a choice: pay and reap benefits, or not pay and go on as they had before my tinkering work came along.

If they didn't want to pay for my program, but wanted the benefits it offered, they could bloody well write their own program! If they didn't have the knowledge or skills to write a program similar to mine, how can they justify stealing mine? Because the WANT it?

Bah! Illegal. Immoral. yecccccchhhh.

[manor]

If you buy something:

CD/record/tape -You can make a copy for yourself as backup.

Software - you can make a copy for yourself as a backup.

Charts - you can make a copy for yourself.

Legally, if a copy is found (if ever) you could be called upon to have to prove that you bought an ORIGINAL. Legally, you CANNOT make copies to give away, sell, donate to any third party. You are as guilty of an offence as the party in possession of a copy as well as the copyshop or duplicator.

This is extremely difficult to police BUT that is the law! Morally - wrong. Buying/selling copies is a huge offence covered by various laws - worldwide.

[Lynx]

World Wide, NO. Most countries, yes!!

This is where we get into problems. China is one of them that does not have copywrites. Anybody can take your stuff, make copies and sell it. I think that we will see this as a major problem in the future because China is buying so many companies.

Some other countries as well.

[catherine@brittany-gites.]

Originally Posted by Lynx

World Wide, NO. Most countries, yes!!

This is where we get into problems. China is one of them that does not have copywrites. Anybody can take your stuff, make copies and sell it. I think that we will see this as a major problem in the future because China is buying so many companies.

Some other countries as well.

Actually China is signed up to the copyrights legislation..... It just does not want to enforce it.

Occasionally they do a crackdown on a major producer who hasnt paid the right bribes after a complaint by one government or the other.

These complaints usually come when the Chinese want some sort of trade favour.

[Piotrek]

Hi

I'm sorry, that I didn't make myself clear.

Swagman, I'm not sure, why you say, that moral values differ by culture etc,. If you think so, you are relativist, and there are many people, like me, who wouldn't agree with you. Castoms and laws differ by culture, but moral values not. Some cultures are immoral in some aspects. I'm far from saying, that my culture is fair. Nobody has direct acces to moral values, but we try the best we can. What we discover we try to catch in our laws. Some people are more succesfull then others.

"Real cruisers are not poor" If they can afford programs, they use, then they are immoral pirating. That's what I said.

On the other hand I wouldn't buy $$$ program, because it would shorten my cruising by few months. I don't say that I'd copy it illegaly, but think what is better, happiness of few people on small boat for few months, possibly live changing experience, or few houndred bucks for software company? If you belive, that utilitarism is correct and you think, that former is better, then you must agree that copying software in this case would be moral. You may differ in utility evaluation, or you may think, that utilitarism is false. Thats why ethics is not a science.

I don't try to make argument. I just presented my interpretation of some philosophical ideas and how they could be applyed to this problem. As for borrowing my boat, the reason why I wouldn't agree is, the risk of loss, demage etc. There is potential loss to the owner.

There are programs, anyone can copy, and payment is in the form of voluntary donation or there are comercial "pop-ups" and "banners" in the programs. There are programs on GNU licence. there are other ways of making buisness then making more and more sophisticated security systems and forceing customers to pay for it.

JanneP, I'm pretty sure, that all of users of your program could afford to pay for it, so according to what I said they were immoral if they didn't do this, because you were loosing money.

The problem is, that value of some good is not equal to the efford made during production (this is what communist belived), but depends on how badly people want it and how easy it is to get it. Please don't tell me, that software compannies will be forced to rise prices, because they need money for reaserch. They set the highest price they can sell, not the lowest that allows them to produce. Like any other company.

At least in Poland piracy forced software companies to lower the prices. Software was to expensive and temptention to strong, so anyone had illegal copies. Suddenly they started to sell computer games with 50% - 80% discount. People could afford it, they started to buy legal copies, and companies still made a good buisness, because burning CD cost them only cents.

Still I wouldn't give illegal software as a gift. It's making other person criminal.

[Nausikaa]

Folks,

I think we have been derailed here. Whatever philosophy one follows the fact remains that we live in a world which is controlled for, hopefully, the common good. One of the areas controlled is that of copyright or intelectual property rights. Whilst being the first to admit that legislation is out of kilter with technical developments the fact remains that legislators have (rightly in my opinion) awarded intellectual property rights to the producer of that property, be it a written work, music or a software program.

I am sure that Bill Gates would not suffer if I was to make an illegal copy of some Microsoft software but that is noit the point. He has a legal and moral right to charge for his product. My legal choices are either to pay what Mr. Gatres deems his software is worth or to say, no thanks, I will get my software from another provider or live without it. You can like it or disslike it but that is the law. For those of us who enjoy the benefit of living in democracies we have the opportunity to lobby our elected representatives in an effort to have the law changed.

Despite debates, such as this one, on what is legally and morally right or wrong, in the end it comes down to a decision to be made by each and every one of us.

Aye

Stephen

yacht NAUSIKAA

[manor]

Originally Posted by Piotrek

Still I wouldn't give illegal software as a gift. It's making other person criminal.

But that, by implication, makes YOU a "criminal" for having the copy - NOT just the "other person"

[Robinsvoyage]

I didn't read too many of the responses, Auzee, beause I didn't want them to manipulate my answer.. I think some people, no, I know some people pretend to be more honest than they really are. As far as the theft of physical property, I agree with you, although there was once a desperate time in my youth I went searching for an easily stealable battery while in a remote port. Fortunatly for my conscience, I didn't find one, and I passed up on all of the SCUBA, navigational, and foul weather gear I did fine. I was simply a pirate witha purpose, and not finding what I was looking for, I ended up paying market price for one at a repair barge. As far as charts, sailing programmes, etc, I guess I'm still very much Old School. Before my last attempt, albeit a calculated and well planned stunt, to cross the Pacific on the Hard Knots, I downloaded tons of charts I realized I didn't have, to supliment the paper charts and pilot guides in my posession. I feel it was probably, mostly, out of financial necessity. So I feel about as guilty as Jean ValJean.. I think one day, when I'm more wealthy, I will be more the paragon of virtue that he turned out to be.

Robin Scott JOhnson

[Harbor_Pilot]

Originally Posted by Manor

If you buy something:

CD/record/tape -You can make a copy for yourself as backup.

Software - you can make a copy for yourself as a backup.

Charts - you can make a copy for yourself.

Legally, if a copy is found (if ever) you could be called upon to have to prove that you bought an ORIGINAL. Legally, you CANNOT make copies to give away, sell, donate to any third party. You are as guilty of an offence as the party in possession of a copy as well as the copyshop or duplicator.

This is extremely difficult to police BUT that is the law! Morally - wrong. Buying/selling copies is a huge offence covered by various laws - worldwide.

Where are you finding these laws? Demanding that it is the LAW, doesn't make it so.

Every DVD I watch has a warning at the begining, sometimes in multiple languages, that one can not fast forward through, stating it is ILLEGAL to copy or sell. Most movie companies take some precautions, using copy protection encoding to make it impossible or at least difficult to copy them.

I just broused through a handfull of CD's at randon. Each one has one or more of the following Legal {Copying - Pirating - Cloning - Reproduction - Distribution} Clues:

WARNING: All Rights Reserved. UNATHORIZED duplication is a violation of the law.

© - Copyrighted

® - Registered / Reserved

As well as a Circled P - Patented

or a Cirlcled T - Tradmarked

If you buy a computer with the Operating Sytem and some software already installed, and the manufactuer provided those programs on CD; the CD's are the backup.

[Nausikaa]

Originally Posted by Aqua Man

Where are you finding these laws? Demanding that it is the LAW, doesn't make it so.

Aqua man,

The actual legislation will depend upon which country you are in. To be honest, I would not have a clue where to start searching for such legislation here in Yemen but I can give you the so called SFS number of the appropriate laws at homwe in Sweden with a link to these - although it probably would not assist in you very much as Swedish law is written in, well, Swedish. Let me know if you want the numbers and links though.

Aye

Stephen

Yacht NAUSIKAA

[Swagman]

Hi piotek,

Sorry my friend to continue to disagree with what you believe, but its good to see you accept some principals. I just can't balance them in my mind as I think moral values are basically the same worldwide just like you, but I still do not believe one has a moral justification for copying someone elses intellectual property.

ie you say 'theres potential loss of owners' when you argue why someone can't take another boat.

But you still think actual loss for the onwers of software is OK?

So are you saying morally you think its OK just because the software company is wealthier than you (and of course that may not be the case as many software authors are one man bands just like you - struggling to feed a family).

On that basis you'd probably find it morally OK for a really poor person to borrow your yacht then?

I think not.

What you are saying actually saying is that there can be more moral 'rule' for you, and another for another. I don't think society is meant to work like that - simple as that.

It's pretty clear no one side in this discussion is convincing the other - and by just so you know, I don't own a software company!

I just hope anyone new to sailing reading this thread does not assume the group of cruisers who think they can operate under their own set of rules is by no way a majority.

The reality is most are more than just straight, they tend to give and share a lot more than they try to take. Maybe thats the root cause of the issue - and forgetting the software they 'give' actually is only licensed for them to use, and not for them to own?? But then are they that silly??? Don't think so, but who knows........

Anyway - nice chat - I'm out of this one.

Cheers

JOHN

Thank you to everyone for the input on this topic. Time to close this one now.

Closed!