The point you raise there is an interesting one. I don't think it justifies the illegal downloading of music but there is something to be said for music companies providing some form of try-before-you-buy system. For example, the big music shops in my city have points where you can scan the barcode of the CD and listen to the tracks in the shop. One of the independent music shops will let you return a CD if you don't like it.

I should probably confess at this point that I was heavily into music downloading during my first two or three years at university. I wasn't really into music when I arrived but the exposure to what was available online meant that I discovered new music I didn't know existed before. In my case, if it hadn't been for filesharing, I would probably still have just the 5 or 6 CDs I had while I was at college. Eventually I reasoned that even though filesharing increased my music buying, it wasn't justification enough for breaking the law, so I deleted it all.

No, but they are laws, good or bad.

Why does it matter why laws are in existence? Unless they require the abandoning of fundamental moral principles there is no reason for them to be disobeyed. I can understand your beliefs about copyright laws but that's just not the way things work at the moment. I don't really see any justification for breaking laws just because you disagree with them.

We are clearly starting in opposite directions. You are going from a law should be followed a priori. I'm going from the side where a law has to constantly justify its existence.

In moral principles, as a rule, freedom is good and certainly the default state. Every law constitutes a restriction of that freedom, so there had better be a very good ethical reason proportionate (or better) to its restriction for it to exist (generally for the utilitarian good of a working society). The moment the reason disappears, or we find it it never existed, dump it. If it still exists, it deserves to be ignored.

Now justify your position, please.

Very well written :up:

By the way, you forgot one little detail on copyright law - Companies themselves have become living entities in the eyes of the law, so the copyrights now will never expire for an eternity. Public domain? What public domain? :p It doesn't exist any longer. Along with this comes the downfall with creativity and of others who seek to better already existing products, since the copyrights will be held for the rest of time.

Our system is very broken.

I wonder how long the US will continue to exist with laws such as this? The way I see it, the US was at its pinnicle between the 1950's and 1960's. Now, just like the roman empire, the long slide has started. I wonder if it will still be a power to recon with in 25 years? Doubt it if things continue the way they are.

Just my 2 cents. Copyright law is just one problem of many however.

-S

Yes, that is my position.

Laws are made by those elected (or appointed) in authority over us and it is the duty of citizens to obey those laws. It does not matter to me why a law was passed, or my own personal opinion of the law. I would only disobey a law if I found it morally objectionable to obey it. Even then I would not protest but accept the consequences of being a law-breaker.

The problem I see with your position is that it makes laws subjective. What if I found certain laws morally unjustified (note that this is different from being morally objectionable)...is it then acceptable for me to disobey them, even though I might find myself in the minority? What if I were a communist who believed that property is theft? Would I be justified in taking things from others because I believed that there could be no crime of 'stealing' if nobody could own property?

Laws are absolute and do not require moral justification for the simple reason that morals differ from person to person, therefore there cannot exist a legal system based on personal morality.

1) Even if you can justify the elected officials because at least society picked them, how do you justify the appointed official.
2) If it is the duty of citizens to obey laws, then it is the duty of the lawmakers to constantly reassess the benefits, costs, and ethics of all laws, and certainly it is not their duty to increasingly pamper to the needs and desires of the corporations.

IMO, there is no such thing as a absolutely non-morally objectionable law. That's because laws involve restriction of freedom, which is generally considered morally objectionable, and impose penalties that involve even more restrictions of freedoms.

Of course, well-written laws bring their own advantages. An acceptable (what most might consider "non-morally objectionable") law is one where the advantages measurably exceed the cost in freedom (for example, the law against murder brings enormous security to society).

Therefore, if a law's unjustified or even inadequately justified, it is already morally objectionable.

It is hard to be certain of the best reply when you do not specify the difference. I will proceed henceforth by assuming:
"Morally unjustifed" = "you perceive that the law's advantage is inadequate to compensate for the loss of freedom"
"Morally objectionable" = "you perceive a disadvantage in the law, beyond the loss of freedom it entails"

Please suggest necessary corrections.

Actually, in that specific case, you should add in the extra factors of the discomfit and dislocation suddenly removing possessions from a person or family would cause. True communists might not have individual property, but they do still have, by necessity, individual possessions. And it does cause substantial inconvenience for them to be taken, and possibly genuine pain.

More generally, in an ethical sense, it may well be considered moral a to take a certain amount from the rich in the society, and even give that to the poor. This collective sense of ethics by society created social welfare and progressive taxation. In taking away a large chunk of income from the rich, clearly their freedom is restricted. Yet advantages accrue in giving the poor a chance to live (you can also restate this as saying that their freedom of action improves), and most people would consider that a substantial plus.

Yet a law that does not adhere to ethics is nothing more than a tyrannical statement. The importance is in the collective, not the personal.

I don't really see why that matters...
I agree with you here. However, if your opinion is that the lawmakers are not fulfilling this role, it is the citizens' duty to protest about it while still obeying the existing laws.

That's not quite what I meant. I'll give an example. Suppose the government were to pass a law requiring people to wear red socks on Wednesdays. That law would have no moral justification but it would not be morally objectionable to obey it because the colour of my socks has no moral relevance. However, if the government were to require people to be naked on Wednesdays (even if they could morally justify the decision), I would consider it morally objectionable to obey.

That's true, but you're still relying on the morals of the individual to consider the pain caused to the victim. You just cannot rely on people acting in others' best interests, hence the need for laws to be absolute, not based on individual morals.

By whose ethics do you judge the laws? My point in this thread is that it is not down to individuals to pick and choose the laws they obey based on whether or not the law can be justified according to their own morals. Only if obeying a law would contradict my own moral beliefs would I consider disobeying it. If I questioned the moral justification for a law then I would consider protesting against it, but I would not disobey it.

Applying this to the original topic, I don't have a problem with laws which 'protect' record companies against piracy. However, if I did disagree with it, I might attempt to raise the issue with those in government but I would not take it upon myself to consider the law 'un-ethical' and ignore it.

Just say 'no' to sheep! http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/6531/sheepfi7.gif


Oh course, the world does need sheep since it might get to chaotic without them.

-S

Of course. Imagine: Kiwi's without sheep. The wolves would starve, N-Zeelander's economy would fail, along with widespread famine throughout the tiny island. This would then spread to nearby Austrailia, and without the sheep's wool to absorb moisture, Austrailia would just combust and burn down. This would cause a big cloud that covered the world killing all life.



Sorry, I may have had a bit too much to drink but I just had to interject a smart-ass comment here.:dead:

I would consider any unjust law to be morally objectionable. It is not about the decency of the obliging law but whether it is constitutional and just. In fact you stumble over your own argument. You state that "By whose ethics do you judge the laws?". However by your own estimation saying that it is not morally objectionable to be forced to wear certain socks, while it is objectionable to be forced to be naked, is irrelavent. How do you decide which is objectionable? Many people consider nudity to be heinous and others consider it natural.

My views are the same as Kazuaki's. A law much constnatly justify its existance. That is in fact the way that western law works. Every law must stand up against the constitution. If it is judged to be unconstitutional then it must be stricken down. Laws are not concrete, only the constitution is. Therefore you cannot pick and choose which laws you think are worth fighting. Every law must be challenged and you can't let anything go.

If a law serves no purpose then it must be challenged. In modern society citizens should then fight to see it taken back. Since nobody is harmed by downloads it is a non-violent form of protest and disobedience. Civil disobedience is a cornerstone of modern democracy. Not to mention that with our governments being so corrupt it is difficult to get their attention by saying "please". Music downloading is widespread, now they have to look at it and consider it. If you all stop and just send emails to Members of Parliament and Members of the House then it likely wont get any attention.