English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Im not sure if I can use Kant as a theory even tho he talks about the right and wrong do's. What do you think any advices I can use.

2007-03-15 12:51:49 · 6 answers · asked by stinky20@sbcglobal.net 1 in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

6 answers

Firstly, do you understand what "shareware" is?

Shareware is computer software that the programmer releases to the public on a try-before-you-buy basis. Please note. The PROGRAMMER who created the software releases the end result of his work to the world, trusting them to pay him for it if they like it and use it. That is what shareware is.

Shareware is NOT: I went on Bearshare or Limewire and shared all my MP3s by this famous star and that famous star and other people shared theirs back with me.

Unless Britney Spears or Ozzie Osbourne release a song and say: "Hey, feel free to make MP3s of this, and you can give copies of it to all of your friends and if y'all like it, send me a couple of bucks!" that song you downloaded of theirs is not shareware, it is, in fact, stolen property. Just read the back of the CD case where it states that copying and distributing the music is against the law and a violation of the copyright.

A good ethical theory? I don't know.

But I do know that musicians, like everybody else, actually work for the money they earn. They earn literally pennies per CD sold. Nothing for MP3s shared. Granted, those pennies add up, but if people want to listen to the music, why shouldn't they be willing to pay the artists a small amount as a token of thanks for creating it in order to encourage them to create more?

2007-03-15 13:01:31 · answer #1 · answered by j3nny3lf 5 · 0 0

There is no good theory.
As you mentioned Kant does not work because:
Kant would say any law which could not be made universal would be unethical. If EVERYONE only downloaded music then would the music industry collapse? Of course not! What would collapse are "music labels" that rip off money from artists for "distribution right". If everyone would ONLY download music there would be no need for music labels, artists would release their music freely, and only good song would get download.
Now you may ask why would artists release music for free? Simple, most artists make money on concerts anyway, NOT on CDs(labels make money on CDs), so when people would like the music they downloaded they would be more likely to go to an artist's concert -- resulting in more revenue for an artist.

2007-03-15 14:19:04 · answer #2 · answered by hq3 6 · 0 0

Just look at the medias treaty and legal standing of the UN on illegally obtaining music regardless of size and component - and I am not sure it is that ethically wrong, we have all taped songs from the radio and these isn't seen as an ethically wrong thing to do yet it is the very same as downloading illegal content.

2007-03-15 13:03:23 · answer #3 · answered by kissaled 5 · 0 0

Kant would say any law which could not be made universal would be unethical. If EVERYONE only downloaded music then would the music industry collapse? What would be the results of universal intellectual property theft?

2007-03-15 13:54:26 · answer #4 · answered by kioruke 2 · 0 0

you are looking for an argument saying it is wrong? Just look up various artists and songwriters. They have very strong opinions on this issue. Personally I don't see how it's any different from when I was growing up and we would take our tape recorders and record songs off the radio.

2007-03-15 12:55:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

You're not stealing intellectual property, you're providing a service by making an off-site backup. They should pay you for your trouble.

2007-03-15 13:01:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers