|
|
Posted by jayembee on 01/01/06 20:44
"Walter R." <wer25@example.com> wrote:
> Your argument is compelling. However, you are confusing *stealing* with
> *frugality*.
"Frugality" is just a rationalization for stealing.
> I would never dream of buying a $ 20 DVD to see a crummy old movie. By
> copying an existing copy, I am not stealing: I am not depriving anyone of
> anything, which would be the essence of stealing. By copying a CD, instead
> of buying one which I would never do, I merely enhance my own standard of
> living without depriving any poor starving artist of anything. Just because
> something is against a stupid law, it is not immoral, as stealing would be.
It doesn't matter if the owners of the property are not losing anything by
your copying it given that you wouldn't buy it anyway.
Our economic system is based on a quid pro quo arrangement. They
have something you want (a movie), and you have something they
want (money). The idea is that you give them money in exchange for
their giving you the movie.
If you copy it, even though they still have the original, you are getting
something from them, without giving them anything in return. *That* is
what makes it unethical, not just because it's against the law.
And if it's just "a crummy old movie", why do you want it in the first place?
-- jayembee
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|