Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
A junk mind at work.
While it can be argued, from a moral point of view, that if vitally needed drugs like AIDS drugs are too expensive for people in the third world, governments may have a moral right somewhat to disrespect existing legal contracts with producers and produce these drugs themselves in violation of patent laws, it always escaped me why somebody could claim the right to steal goods of luxury just because he says he cannot or does not want to pay for them.
|
Because it is an extension of the life vs patents argument, for lower stakes all around.
The fundamental axiom to be determined is the sanctity of intellectual property. Is it an unviolable deontological principle, or something to be judged on the altar of utilitarianism?
If it is the former, then violating it is impermissible even in defense of life (and this would apply even if you said Life is also an unviolable deontological principle, for inviolable means just that). The position is defensible enough to form our pro forma law today.
However, I'm a utilitarian myself, and believe that ultimately there is NOTHING that is inviolable beyond the axiom of aiming for the maximum good, So let's examine the other position.
The legitimacy of upholding intellectual property rights (like all other rights) in utilitarianism is weighed on a gain-loss balance. The main utilitarian justification for intellectual property rights is to ensure adequate profits to monetarily entice / enable the continued creation of new intellectual works. The main justification in the other direction is the greater proliferation of existing works - after all, it does not do much good to society if the greatest, most socially beneficial intellectual work is so highly priced that only 10 people would ever receive its benefits.
While determing the balance between these two forces is difficult, a case where it becomes easy is in most cases of piracy. the guy is unwilling, or even unable, to pay the required price. Often, this would be true even if there was no pirated version - he'll simply deem the item too expensive to play with. That makes the theoretical gain in favor of intellectual property unachievable.
The only gain that's potentially achievable in the scenario is the gain from the spread of intellectual works. Given the choice of pirating or not enjoying the work, In "tactical" utilitarian morality, therefore,
mandates that the guy pirate, so at lesat he (who, though tiny and perhaps selfish, IS part of society) gains.
One would argue this is not fair to those who did buy the work. Fair, however, is one of those concepts that can be referenced off countless levels. For example, the progressive tax meets one definition of fair, a flat tax a second, and a proportional tax a third! Further, again, as a utilitarian, we are looking for the maximum good here, and IMO it is a defensible argument that the benefits of a wider proliferation of intellectual works is worth some loss of "fairness".
Another argument would appeal to the strategic aggregate loss. However, the strategic effects of piracy are far more complex than a simplistic loss relationship for our intellectual works creators. As previously mentioned, most people going down the pirated route WOULDN'T have bought the legal version with its high price even if it had been the only option, and the greater proliferation brings our Creators advantages, including monetary (for example, by introducing more to your products, and some of the pirates impressed enough to buy the next one).
The effect is strong enough that some studies have already suggested the negative effect of our piracy (at present at least) is that the claimed losses are exaggerated, or even flattened by the plusses. To the extent this is true, it weakens the practical utilitarian argument of intellectual property.
From a utilitarian perspective, IF System A leads to profits of $100 mil for our intellectual property and results in proliferation to 1 million people, and System B leads to the same 100 mil but prolfieration of 100 million people (because the other 99 million pirated their copies), in terms of utilitarian gain to society, System B is arguably superior. In fact, the benefits of greater proliferation may even be worth a limited cut in quantity of produced creative work.
Quote:
|
And that xbox owner I call as what he is, too: a confessing thief who should be prosecuted and sentenced.
|
1) The copying of intellectual property does not deprive anyone of anything more than the rather iffy possibility that the pirater would have bought the game if only he did not pirate.
2) It has continuously eluded me how right of intellectual property should morally be greater than the right to physical freedom.