-
I was thinking through the moral and philosophical implications of copyright with my buddy josh last night and this is basically what I worked out. There are 3 factors to consider and if you ask me this is some much needed narrowing of the hazy line drawn between copyright infraction and normal, legal production in the electronic world.
Ok first is actually some backstory. I would never steal software myself, but if other's have stolen it I'll use it, but not on my computer. Why, might you ask? Because if you went to a friends house used software and then went home happy assuming it wasn't illegal, is the overall effect any different if you go over use it and leave knowing it is illegal? Is it any more ethically wrong towards the company who produced it to use stolen software without knowing it's origins than knowing its origins? Are you at fault every time you use someone else's software because you didn't check to see if it was stolen? Then is the burden of proof on you before you touch any program you didn't purchase yourself to make sure it was attained in an ethical manner? I would have to say no (purely from an philisophical view of people and their place, not contradicting the current legal establishment). This means intent matters even though the outward effect is the same, if someone helped you in order to watch you move around to get sexual pleasure does it make any difference if they helped you out of the kindness of their heart? Outwardly the effect is the same.
With that in mind let's move onto the second one I'd like to talk about: youtube. Here is a system where bands (and others but the focus is music) choose to upload their music on their own channels and they do that. People can listen to it for free anytime they have an internet connection as many times as they want. Now let's say a band doesn't want people to have free access to their music, then they can tell youtube and [google now actually] will block anything that comes onto youtube that contains almost any portion of their music. Now using firefox download helper or a plethora of other free youtube oriented programs and websites will allow you to download it and listen to it on your ipod when your away from your computer or from the web. You can share it infinitely just as they were doing originally. now let's say the company wants to share their music but only if they get hits on their channel, youtube can block every single legal program out there from downloading their music even though it's up their (aside from a mike held next to your computer). This is essentially attaining property under their terms. They agree to youtube's standards and practices the moment they put it onto youtube and the terms you can attain their property under suddenly change and expand. Youtube is not a public domain, it is a private establishment for trade.
So considering those two we come to the third point. If I leave something priceless on my front lawn (on my property) and you steal it, show it off to make money for yourself solely and then return it to me even without my knowledge is that legal? Of course not. Now if I ask you permission for it, achieve the same results and return it that is legal. Now while it seems to conflict with the first statement about intent it's merely a modifier. If you decided to use a bittorent to get the free music offered on youtube because it was faster, more convenient and easier to find everything I would say that that is illegal. Intent makes no difference if it's under the user's terms (I.E. using stolen software falls under you can use someone else's software and your family can use yours they just can't copy it onto their computers and leave with it). While a bittorent achieves the same results, it's illegal because it's not under the contractually agreed upon terms that are assumed when they add things to youtube. They don't willingly add it to an illegal source (or else it wouldn't be illegal). But I would say it is legal if your friend gives you a copy of bittorented music that COULD have been taken from the free youtube source as long as the provider ultimately promoted free copying and sharing (a.k.a. using youtube and leaving it downloadable).
So back to the front lawn: I'm the one that lives in a nice neighborhood or reserves the right to shoot anyone who steps onto my lawn because they are invading my property, gaining use from things I've earned and not agreed to let them use on my terms so I can blow their head off. Thusly inferred: all property of yours must be on your person, within your direct control or on your property Or within a caretaker's control that you appointed or approved, public or private. Outside of that it is illegally attained.
If you willingly leave it to the actual public domain than it's totally up for grabs and unmanageable. This is why if legal sources allow the downloading of software it should be rightfully considered your own attained royalty free material that you can use anywhere. (Addendum) About leaving credit of course you should always leave credit for any work not originally created by you. Even if you modify music or video still give credit to the original creator.
There that's all of it.
