I do not understand the need for Hamlet-like soliloquies and tortuous rationalizations surrounding the ethics of pirating copyrighted music.
Perhaps my age and bottom-line mentality are showing. If so, forgive a near senile old geezer. It just all seems so simple to me: if something is illegal, that is really all that I need to know. That is the bottom-line.
That bottom-line issue settled, I am left to make an informed and conscious decision to obey or disobey the law.
The current I-Net music pirating situation has a partial analogy in the marijuana debates of 40-years ago. Back then, Doctor A claimed that M-J is bad for one’s health; thus, laws regarding control of M-J are necessary. Doctor B counter-claimed that M-J is not bad for one’s health; thus, laws regarding control of M-J are unnecessary. Dueling doctors, both opinions authoritative, armies of well-informed and well-intentioned supporters on both sides of the issue. That war of words continues to this day, with no armistice yet in sight.
As a practical matter, Doctor A’s and Doctor B’s opinions regarding marijuana matter for little or nothing. The people who put people into jail for illegal use/possession/sale of marijuana consult books of law. They do not consult books of medicine.
In a similar fashion, opinions regarding the ethics of pirating copyrighted music matter for little or nothing. The people who put people into court for pirating copyrighted music consult books of law. They do not consult books of philosophy.
There is little to debate because -- debate has been superseded by law.
You only need to make a choice: obey or disobey the law.
You understand the rules of the game, you choose to roll the dice; you choose to take your chances, you choose to accept the reward, you choose to accept the penalty.
Regards,
Bottom-Line Gadget