I disagree, Kazuaki. Your conclusions seem based solely upon the assumed principle that the proliferation of intellectual works is "good". I subscribe to neither strict deontology nor utilitarianism - perhaps a little of both, but highly regulated by applied realism versus the mental exercise of attempting to fit every scenario within the realms of defined ethics.
The spread of amusement is not a benefit upon itself!
One could just as easily suggest that its acceptable for someone to steal the very XBOX they're playing the game on, as it is to steal the game. One could just as easily state that, because of the implied injustice of piracy, certain enriching intellectual properties are not fully developed, thusly depriving the paying masses of access to other forms of brilliance.
Ultimately, depriving someone of their rights to create a property within their control is unjust. Furthermore, as has been stated previously, granting the permission for others to steal such property merely for the reason that they WANT it and don't want to/can't pay for it, is quite trite.
But just examine your argument further - explore the ethics of Microsoft banning the accounts of known pirates. It would seem that deontologically they are correct in doing so. Furthermore, granting free access to items of entertainment, when one HAS THE ABILITY TO RESTRICT SUCH ACCESS, would seem to fly in the face of utilitarianism.
|