[rbanffy]

There are a couple issues here.

The first one is whether copyright infringement as I think she was part of really hurts content producers. If someone is unwilling to pay a couple dollars for a movie in iTunes, you are not likely to buy the DVD either, thus, it's not a lost sale. If, OTOH, the work gets more exposure thanks to alternative distribution networks and that generates more customer engagement, the content producer wins in the end.

The second is whether books, movies, music and games whose primary purpose is to make a profit can be considered art. I think they can't. The primary purpose - and usefulness - of art is to transform the people who experience it. I don't think laws should protect the business model of selling art and experiences, but their usefulness.

A third question is whether it's even possible to prevent the duplication of digital goods. Most probably it isn't. Businesses must adapt to new realities - should typewriter makers be afforded the right to ban computer sales because they hurt the already established business?

Another one is whether they were turning in a profit. If they were, part of it belongs, rightfully, to the content producers.

Finally, there is her attitude towards law enforcement. I understand her frustration with what she considers unfair laws and processes. I am not sure her attitude is constructive and that sending her to jail was the best way to deal with it. If I were the judge, I'd like to lecture her about what she's doing that can be misinterpreted as threats. Jails are very tense environments and they don't need more agitation than they already have.

[lachyg]

"The first one is whether copyright infringement as I think she was part of really hurts content producers. If someone is unwilling to pay a couple dollars for a movie in iTunes, you are not likely to buy the DVD either, thus, it's not a lost sale. If, OTOH, the work gets more exposure thanks to alternative distribution networks and that generates more customer engagement, the content producer wins in the end."

Seriously? This is not an issue of whether it financially hurts the content producer, it's that you're getting it without paying for it, and others are paying for it. You're getting access to content that you haven't paid for.

[dillona]

What if you are not given the option to pay for it? Is it still wrong to download?

Remember many people outside America can't use Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Instant Video, etc.

[Dylanlacey]

Yes it's still wrong. You're not entitled to media content. It's not a civil right or a natural resource or something you've earned.

It's an entertainment product you can choose to access.

[lachyg]

I'm one of those people with none of those options. Yes, it's definitely still wrong. Just because we don't have the option, doesn't mean it's morally / ethically right and or legal.

[chc]

But that doesn't mean it isn't morally and ethically right either. You need to first lay out a moral framework that enshrines copyright as inviolate (I'm very curious what, if any, exceptions you'll make for fair use), and then argue for it. It seems to me that in the most common rational models of morality, things default to being either moral or amoral unless shown to be otherwise.

[dillona]

I suppose I just disagree.

These are ephemeral goods we are talking about. Nobody loses anything if you download a movie. I don't see how it is morally wrong to download something if the creators refuse to take your money.

[lachyg]

Again, like all my opinions above I'm going to get downvoted, but I still can't comprehend how you can justify that it's not wrong to download it just because they're "ephemeral" digital goods.

How does that make it any different?

How about this: famous dress maker designs and creates an extravagant dress and then you, with your fine sowing skills replicate the dress entirely and wear it. Is that not wrong in your eyes?

The above isn't the best example, but I still can't see the reasoning as to why it's not wrong.

[tikhonj]

First off, your example wouldn't even be illegal, as far as I know: at least in the US, fashion is not covered by copyright.

Secondly, I don't see why it would be immoral: the designer of the dress is not hurt at all by your copying it. Now, if you claim your dress has actually been made by said designer--e.g. you infringe on his trademark--that's basically fraud and a completely different case.

The real issue is that it seems you define "wrong" as an enumeration of things you shouldn't do, among which you seem to include copying without permission.

You haven't given any reason for it to be wrong. I think that something is not "wrong" or "immoral" by default; unless there's a good reason for something to be wrong, it shouldn't be. And, as copying like this does not obviously harm society, I see no reason for it to be wrong.

[rbanffy]

So, your point is that someone is not paying for something someone else is. If you follow your logic, you'll never cook at home because people pay to eat at restaurants.

It gets even worse because many people don't live next to a restaurant.

Plus, all these analogies fail at one simple point: when a work is copied, a copy is created and nothing is destroyed except the scarcity someone wants to create for things that, by definition, cannot be scarse.