A moral question

Let me try to draw distinctions with a difference.

While it is true that each person has his/her own moral code, I think it is fair to say that societies in general have adopted certain moral codes as a necessary component to the maintenance of the very existence of those societies. In fact, there is a high degree of congruence in the moral codes across various societies and religions; even those originating in locales far-flung from each other. I take this as evidence that the human condition, in a social situation, has sufficient cross-cultural commonality that these common rules are likely prerequisites for social amity.

One such rule is that prohibiting theft.

Theft is wrong for a variety of reasons, but I will explain this in my own way.

My life is finite. It's very finiteness gives it its value. When I exchange a portion of the finite and unrecoverable time of my life in the creation of something -- it is mine. I own it. My ownership of my own creation is an extension of my ownership of my life. To deprive me of my creation is, in fact, to deprive me without compensation of those precious and finite hours of my life I dedicated to its creation.

A murder deprives me of ALL the remaining hours of my life. But a theft only deprives me of some of them. Thus, in a hierarchy of values, theft would not be as "wrong" as murder; but it is STILL wrong.

I don't create movies, but I write books and create music among otehr things. If you do not believe my books and music are valuable enough to be worth their price, you do not have to purchase them. If enough people decide not to purchase them, I will be forced to lower my asking price. That is, the value of the time of my life dedicated to their creation will be decided by the value these creations have to others. If they have little enough value to others, I will stop spending the finite time of my life in their creation, and dedicate my time to creating other things.

But when you STEAL the results of my research, reason, insight, time and creativity -- you are depriving me of the value of my life.

This applies whether my creation is physical property such as a tomato or intellectual property such as a book or movie. If you don't like my tomato or book you don't have to buy it. In this way, these things remain available for someone else who sees them to be of value to buy. If you steal it, you both deprive me of just compensation AND deny others the opportunity to have it. If enough people steal my work, I will eventually stop making it available altogether and thus nobody will derive value from it. The objective of all business is profit. When you deny me profitability through theft, you disincentivize the creation.

As all values start with creation in either the physical or intellectual realm; theft is one of the most dangerous actions that can go unchecked. Disincentivizing creators ultimately impoverishes the entire society. This is why practically all societies and religions prohibit theft. It is not just bad for the individual, but if allowed to take place wholesale, would bring society to a halt.

So, yes, stealing movies is wrong. If you believe they are not worth the asking price, then don't buy them and don't watch them.

This is very different than issues pertaining to sex, polygamy, monogamy, prostitution, etc.

Over time and across cultures, it is very clear that a great many forms of organization have been employed; and the most frequently employed in all cultures (accounting for differences in upper body strength between males and females of our species) is polygyny. Rules regarding prostitution differ dramatically both in place and in time. In some places it is allowed, in some it is prohibited. In some times, it has been sacred, in other times it has been despised.

Because of its divergent nature across time and cultures and even between locations within the same cultures; rules pertaining to prostitution do not have the same implications for social stability as rules pertaining to theft. Amsterdam is no less stable than Seattle just because prostitution is allowed in one city but not the other; but if theft were permitted without recourse in either location, it would quickly degenerate to chaos and violence.

So let me draw the distinction this way.

Acts that are prohibited across cultures and across time because the failure to prohibit them would threaten the very existence of the society are malum per se; that is, wrong in and of themselves. And they would be wrong even if no law existed to prohibit them. Stealing movies falls under this category right alongside stealing cars, tomatoes, etc.

Acts that are NOT prohibited across cultures and across time because their performance has little or no effect on social stability are malum prohibitum; that is, declared to be wrong simply because they are prohibited. Such actions, in any given context, may be either wrong OR right, depending upon the end accomplished by engagement. Engaging the services of a provider acting of her own free will generally falls in this category.

There is a big difference between these two things.

Speed limits can fall into both categories. Certainly, 20mph while school is letting out is necessary to prevent the deaths of innocent children at the hands of motorists who believe 20 seconds of their time is more valuable than a child's life. However, the difference between 65 and 75 on a clear highway in terms of risk to the innocent is negligible and the law primarily exists to allow for revenue collection.

So going 60 in a 20 mph school zone while kids are getting out is malum per se; and going 75 on a 65 mph Interstate with no other cars around is malum prohibitum.

Fair enough?

Talk about over complicating a simple issue. That is some good spin my friend ever think fof becoming a lawyer, you went from downloading a movie to depriving life and society needs to stop depriving life. That's a good one. It is a movie, simple, no one is being deprived of life - period.

A creator puts his work out for public enjoyment and a by product of the publicity is theft through downloading, not saying that makes it right. Your analysis forgets the natural human behavior of selfishness when there are no consequences. Why is that masterbation is called the "secret sin?" Because we all do it when we do not think we will get caught. Why do numerous people download movies because the liklihood of being caught is slim. Selfishness without consequences. That is something that is just human nature and will not stop.

Furthermore, when I purchase the price of a ticket I have no clue whether or not I am going to enjoy the movie, I have not seen it yet. I have created entertainment as well through live shows. My true compensation comes in seeing the audience enthralled and others enjoying my work and if they wanted to video it and put it on the internet I would be flattered. Maybe all this value talk is why i have not paid to see a movie in numerous years. I also read the first few chapters of a book before purchasing it and I cannot tell you how many I put back down, I love to read but it has to be an interesting subject or story for my liking, simple.

Wow! Now I need a pong hit. MALUM PROHIBITUM!

Lets watch the drug talk here StM

I'm not trying to trivialize the creative spirit or detract from someone making a living via the entertainment industry. I do think they deserve to make a fair salary based on their work. I know there are hard working people behind the scenes in terms of producing movies. My issue is that the big name stars get over paid and are whiney/sniveling spoiled brats who make millions spewing lines that someone else wrote for them. All the while, this brainless talent makes more money than school teachers, police, fire fighters, and the military. George Clooney alone demands "X" millions of dollars for every movie he makes, yet there are 18 and 19 year old kids fighting in Afghanistan while getting paid less than $25K/year. So while I know it is WRONG to download movies or music, my guilt meter doesn't go berserk over the few times a year I might do it. Just like I never give a fleeting thought when I go 50 in a 45.

My issue is that the big name stars get over paid and are whiney/sniveling spoiled brats who make millions spewing lines that someone else wrote for them. Originally Posted by Cpalmson

Well, if that's your issue, then can we assume you think it's ok to sneak into a football game without paying? Or even a movie house for that matter. Do you feel it's ok to fill your tank up with gas but not pay because the price is too high? Or because oil companies make too much? Dine and dash because the restaurateur has a multi million dollar mansion down the street from you?

If you want to download movies, fine. Knock yourself out. But don't insult your own intelligence by trying to rationalize it with arguments such as this. The only real argument you need is "because i can". Just ask yourself how many people would rob banks for a living if they had a 100% iron clad guarantee they could continually get away with it.

All the while, this brainless talent makes more money than school teachers, police, fire fighters, and the military. George Clooney alone demands "X" millions of dollars for every movie he makes, yet there are 18 and 19 year old kids fighting in Afghanistan while getting paid less than $25K/year.

I share your disgust. And i use it to make arguments about a lot of things, but downloading movies or music is not one of them.

Just like I never give a fleeting thought when I go 50 in a 45.

You never give a fleeting thought about going 50 in a 45 because you know you can get away with it. Nobody gets stopped for going 5MPH over the speed limit. If you truly wanted to use this example, you'd have to say "Just like i never give a fleeting thought when i go 75 in a 30". Come on, have the courage of your convictions! The difference between going 75 in a 30 and 50 in a 45 is that you're more likely to get caught.

Laws alone don't keep people from doing things. The threat of getting caught and punished is what keeps people from doing things. And if you're comfortable with that threat as it relates to downloading movies, you're in the clear.

Just remember that when you steal music or movies, it's not the people at the top that suffer, it''s the ones at the bottom.

So your hurting the little guy.

Just remember that when you steal music or movies, it's not the people at the top that suffer, it''s the ones at the bottom.

So your hurting the little guy. Originally Posted by 90c2cab

+1

Nitwitboy....

Tisk Tisk Tisk

When did you warp your justification about stealing intellectual property into some kind of entitlement?

No produced media is free. Anything you would find worth viewing or listening to is produced at some kind of expense (sometimes in shocking amounts). On top of that, all valuable media is the creative work of an artist. All of it is made available to you at some kind of price. Your only choice is to agree to that price or pass on the experience. If you don't like the price of a movie ticket, CD or your cable bill, then don't watch or listen. That is your alternative.

None of the songwriters or filmakers or any of the other thousands of artists are doing it for you to enjoy for free- unless they say so.

If you use some illegal or nefarious means of obtaining a copy of that media, then you are simply an amoral thief - a pirate. You are showing blatant disrespect for the very artists that you seem to enjoy so much.

Originally Posted by 90c2cab
Just remember that when you steal music or movies, it's not the people at the top that suffer, it''s the ones at the bottom.

So your hurting the little guy.


Yeah show the fluffers some love.

of the providers who see the moral wrongness in pirating a movie fwwl the same way if they neglect to report and pay taxes on their income through this hobby or if they are collecting and turning in the sales taxes for their services and companionship time.

How many here obey the speed limit? Come to a complete stop at a stop sign when there's no traffic? Wear their seat belts? I could go on and on. We have too many stupid laws on the books (and yes, speed limits and seat belt laws are STUPID). Originally Posted by Cpalmson

of the providers who see the moral wrongness in pirating a movie fwwl the same way if they neglect to report and pay taxes on their income through this hobby or if they are collecting and turning in the sales taxes for their services and companionship time. Originally Posted by petiteassman

I think the two are very different issues intrinsically.

Between two individuals, business is transacted between a willing buyer and a willing seller. So the transfer other than through theft is voluntary.

When you as an individual steal from me as an individual, you have deprived me of something to which I already have a moral right.

Our tax system falls under an entirely different moral rubric. The tax collector is ultimately backed up by heavily armed persons; and sufficient resistance to payment will net one's untimely demise. It is NOT a voluntary system, but rather a system mediated by force.

I'm not going to debate the ins and outs and rights and wrongs of the tax system right now. It is sufficient to differentiate it from private business by simply demonstrating that it is not a voluntary system; but is rather backed by force.

There is a big difference between going out of your way to steal from me -- because I have no power of coercion to force you to buy my product; and persons who avoid or evade a coerced payment.

Again, I'm not debating the justness or whatnot of the tax system. Rather, I am differentiating between a system based upon force/coercion and a system based on voluntary trade between a willing buyer and a willing seller.

Taking something from me is not the same thing as withholding something from coercion.

NOW ... what I DO think ... is that if providers declared every penny of income and paid their full tax load on it -- federal, FICA (a double dose as your own employer), state, plus sales taxes &c they would be a lot less prone to favor candidates who favor taxing the "rich." They would quickly discover that the cutoff for being in the top 5% of wage earners and thus subjected to ruinous taxation is only about $154k. Lots of providers, if they reported every penny, earn that much. And they would be paying $22k/year in FICA alone! Nothing quite reforms a person's outlook on government as effectively as sitting down once every three months and writing a check for thousands of dollars that you now no longer have for your own health, education and welfare or that of your loved ones.

But that's a subject for another day.

Nitwitboy, i download movies too, watch them then delete them, I dont consider it stealing because I am not recording them to a disc..... u can go to www.surfthechannel.com and see shows for free there are sites u can find that will allow u to see movies at no cost....
Me personally when I travel and dont have internet up, I like to watch a good flick!
I think if you feel bad about then dont do it! My Opinion! Kisses!

To Nitwitboy:

Stealing is wrong. You wouldn't steal a car, or steal a DVD from a store would you?

Stealing movies is stealing from the industry: actors, directors, lighting crews, writers, camera crews, special effects companies, music composers and orchestras, editors, the list goes on. That's money they've earned that you're not paying. To see a full list of who you're stealing from watch the entire list of credits at the end of a movie. All those people are who you're stealing from.
Imagine how you'd feel if someone was stealing something you had a part in producing. You'd feel cheated, wouldn't you?

You need to quit stealing movies. Now.

To RN1204:

I want to extend a big Thank You to you, Sir, for your service and sacrifice to our country. Without you and your fellow soldiers, our country would not be as safe as it is now, and we would not have the freedom that so many people in this nation take for granted.

You are one of America's Best, and I give you a standing ovation.

Our tax system falls under an entirely different moral rubric. Originally Posted by Laurentius

Not really.

The tax collector is ultimately backed up by heavily armed persons; and sufficient resistance to payment will net one's untimely demise. It is NOT a voluntary system, but rather a system mediated by force.

But isn't the businessman also backed up by heavily armed persons; and sufficient resistance to payment will net one's untimely demise? The laws that require you and i to stop at the checkout and pay for what we take are based on the same concepts as the laws that require you and i to pay taxes. And those laws are backed by the same government that will come after you or i if we don't pay taxes. And let's be honest, most people don't stop at the checkout out of a sense of moral duty. They stop because they don't want to get picked up for shoplifting.

It is sufficient to differentiate it from private business by simply demonstrating that it is not a voluntary system; but is rather backed by force.

Where payment is required of any kind, it's never voluntary, or only rarely voluntary, and it's almost always backed by force. Now, i understand that you're talking about "voluntary purchase" so......

There is a big difference between going out of your way to steal from me -- because I have no power of coercion to force you to buy my product; and persons who avoid or evade a coerced payment.

The only real difference is in your point that nobody is obligated to buy your product and hence, be forced by the government to pay for it, as opposed to the obligation to pay taxes. But in reality, there is no obligation to pay taxes. The option does exist to quit your job(s), build a cabin in the woods and live off the land. A bit flip, perhaps, and not a perfect response, but this isn't a perfect world. Until any of us do that, as citizens, we're all subject to the same laws and moral obligation to pay our taxes as we are to pay you for your product.

Again, I'm not debating the justness or whatnot of the tax system. Rather, I am differentiating between a system based upon force/coercion and a system based on voluntary trade between a willing buyer and a willing seller.

Actually, if i may, it sounds as if you're doing both. But nevertheless, the moral and legal obligation exists equally in both cases, and therefore, splitting such a hair as you do for the purpose of intending to draw some major distinction between the two situations seems somewhat pointless. Especially within the confines of what should otherwise be a rather simple discussion.

If i didn't know better, i would almost think your attempt is to do exactly what the OP is attempting to do; justify not paying what you are, if nothing else, legally obligated to pay.

Petiteassman actually does raise a pretty good point. Providers not paying the taxes on their revenue is not all that far removed, if at all, from what the original poster is doing. To which i would go back to the point i made in my last post; that they - both the providers and the OP - do it because they can get away with it based on the dynamics involved. The OP benefits from the fact that he can grab your product, without your knowledge, from the comfort of his couch. The providers benefit from the fact that the government has deemed their activity outside the bounds of what's legal which forces them "underground" and away from the eyes of the IRS. But make no mistake, the providers don't not pay because there's some major moral distinction between the 2 situations. At least not in the way you're trying to paint it.

NOW ... what I DO think ... is that if providers declared every penny of income and paid their full tax load on it -- federal, FICA (a double dose as your own employer), state, plus sales taxes &c they would be a lot less prone to favor candidates who favor taxing the "rich." They would quickly discover that the cutoff for being in the top 5% of wage earners and thus subjected to ruinous taxation is only about $154k. Lots of providers, if they reported every penny, earn that much. And they would be paying $22k/year in FICA alone! Nothing quite reforms a person's outlook on government as effectively as sitting down once every three months and writing a check for thousands of dollars that you now no longer have for your own health, education and welfare or that of your loved ones.

But that's a subject for another day.

You're right, and i'm too dang tired.