Re: Napster destroys Western Civilization

On Wed, May 17, 2000, Orrin Onken <simon[_at_]loris.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 May 2000, Dodi Schultz <schultz[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > Your legal point is well taken, and I concede it. Indeed, they
> > are different misdeeds and differently dealt with under the law.
> > And when Shakespeare ruminated on "stealing a purse" (theft)
> > versus "filching" -- or "robbing" someone of -- a good name, he
> > was referring in the latter case to yet a third legal concept,
> > defamation.
> >
> > Still, in the moral -- or ethical -- sense, are not all of these
> > examples of wrongly taking something of value from someone else?
> > And, in that sense, theft?
>
> I'm not sure the moral implications are all that clear either.
> There is certainly no rich religious history of disapproving copying.
> There is no, "Thou shalt not copy." And copying does not always take
> something of value. I might copy that which I would rather do without
> than buy. Thus, copying no more deprives the creator of a royalty
> than buying a used book. If you are primarily Kantian in your ethics
> -- in which case the act can be wrong for all and without regard to
> consequences -- I think there is little to support copying as a moral
> imperative akin to theft, or much less, piracy.
>
> If your morals run more utilitarian, as Americans tend to do, then
> you have to attempt to predict the long term social goals and how
> the most will benefit in the long run. These kinds of analyses,
> however, often look self serving. I was quite a fan of copyright
> as long as I had the image of the struggling writer, singer or
> inventor being protected from those who would steal the fruits of
> his efforts. When I began reading the cases, however, all the
> struggling plaintiffs had names like Disney or Time-Warner. I began
> to see copyright as a way in which economic giants simultaneously
> impoverish the public domain and enrich themselves. Companies that
> cry out against any government regulation themselves use an expanded
> definition of 'property' to regulate criticism and the creativity
> in those they don't control. Using my first rather romantic image
> copying would probably be a moral wrong by utilitarian standards.
> Using the second, I think that copying can constitute principled
> resistance to injustice.
>
> I am still not decided about the moral issues involved. I do know,
> however, that supporters of copyright who regularly use words like
> "theft" and "piracy" annoy me by implying that the ethical issues
> are both clear and resolved.

In the last 3-4 years I've seen a lot of unexpected things show up on this list ... but never before has anyone dropped a reference to Kant's Prolegomena to the Metaphysic of Morals. My hat is off to Simon!

> Robert C. Cumbow
> Graham & Dunn, P.C.
> 1420 Fifth Avenue, 33rd Floor
> Seattle, Washington 98101-2390
> Phone: 206-340-9619
> Fax: 206-340-9599
> E-mail: rcumbow[_at_]grahamdunn.com
> Website: http://www.grahamdunn.com/
>

		Big law firm experience
	without the big law firm experience.SM

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This email message may be protected by the attorney/client privilege, work product doctrine or other confidentiality protection. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error. Then delete it. Thank you. Received on Thu May 18 2000 - 15:46:28 GMT