The Ethics of Copying Music, Movies, and Software
I. Introduction
The purpose of this essay is to discuss and assess the morality of copying music, movies, and software and whether the intended use makes a difference. I will be addressing case #3, the ethics of copying music, movies, and software. It is my considered opinion that it is morally unacceptable to copy music, movies, and software. I will defend my position by making use of analogies, making an appeal to consequences and argument by definition, and considering objections against my view.
Many media companies make it illegal and warn against copying music, movies, and software, but there is controversy over whether copying media is immoral.
II. Argument
In this day and age of technological advancements, with the right software and equipment, it is fairly easy to download and copy music, movies, and software. All it takes is the right software or website to obtain, download, or copy a piece of media without having to buy it. Many people make their own copies for personal backups, give copies to family and friends, or even sell copies to others for a profit.
Companies have made many efforts to protect their media, but it is proven that there are ways to get around them. Most movies come with piracy warnings before the movie begins, and music and software downloads often do the same, so people are not excused from piracy by claiming not to know that what they were doing was illegal. Copyright laws protect against piracy, and people are warned of the consequences of piracy such as fines or jail time.
The issue of this essay is whether or not pirating or copying music, movies, and software is morally acceptable. I argue that this practice is immoral, no matter the the intended use, and will defend my view with the arguments and analogies that follow.
According to Merriam-Webster, piracy is defined as the “unauthorized use of another’s production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright” (Merriam- Webster). According to Dictionary.com, stealing is defined as taking what belongs to someone else without permission and without intent to return (Dictionary.com). The definition of piracy and stealing are almost synonymous with each other. When people make copies of media, whether they bought a copy or not, they are stealing.
According to the definition of piracy and stealing, which is often frowned upon, when one does not own something and they use it without the permission of the owner, they are stealing. When one does not own something and they use or duplicate it without the permission of the owner, they are pirating. If someone does not own the rights to a work, they have no right to make copies of it, because they only purchased a single copy of a work. When companies sell a copy of a movie, album, or software, they are selling one, individual copy. If someone wants another copy, according to copyright laws, they need to buy another one. When assessing the morality of copying media, one needs to consider the basis of it. Stealing is generally considered wrong. If stealing is morally unacceptable, then so is pirating media. This leads to the next point: comparing pirating to other forms of stealing.
When considering the morality of pirating media, one should consider the other forms and examples of stealing. If these forms of stealing are wrong, then so is copying music, movies, and software because of the similar properties shared between the examples and pirating. Take the following two analogies for example.
Counterfeiting money is illegally copying currency with the intent of spending or distributing it. Since only the government owns the right to make, print, and distribute money, anyone who counterfeits money would be stealing. If the person who counterfeits and/or spends the copies and does nothing to earn the money, they are wrongfully benefiting and profiting from a practice that they do not deserve. They are taking another person’s (the government) property (counterfeiting money) without permission from the rightful owner. If counterfeiting money is wrong, isn’t pirating media be wrong too? Just like in counterfeiting, someone is benefiting from another’s work or property and passing it off as their own when they pirate media.
Secondly, take plagiarism for example. If someone copies another person’s work without properly crediting them, they would be plagiarizing, which is a form of stealing. This is taking someone’s ideas and allowing someone else to take the work as theirs, which is morally wrong. If plagiarizing is wrong, isn’t pirating media wrong? Just like media companies, authors, artists, publishers, etc. work hard to create the work that they do. When someone comes along and takes credit for their work, they are stealing it.
Both the analogies of counterfeiting and plagiarism are examples of stealing and can be compared to pirating. Each of the three examples involve using or distributing something owned by someone else and benefiting from it without compensating or crediting the true owner.
Finally, pirating media is morally wrong, because the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. In an appeal to consequences, one has to look at the moral consequences of copying media. The harms of the practice include financial misfortune for the media companies who suffer from pirating. When someone copies music, movies, or software, no matter what their intentions are, the company they copied it from loses money. For each copy that is given away that is not sold by the company it originated from, money is lost.
When thinking about how many times people copy media around the world, it is clear that companies lose millions and millions of dollars from pirating. If someone plans to copy music, movies, or software and intends to sell them, they are definitely stealing money from the company who owns the rights. This is especially immoral, because film, record, and software companies work hard to make the media that they do. They should get the profits and reap the benefits of it. Not only do the companies need to profit from their work, but so do the actors, musicians, producers, publishers, designers, and others featured on their work. There are so many people who work hard to put together media who lose money when their work is copied.
The temporary enjoyment of hearing, viewing, or using pirated music, movies, and software does not outweigh the financial loss to the media companies who suffer from it. Pirating is not a victimless crime if the companies and contributors who help to make, copy, and distribute their media lose money that is rightfully theirs.
While the above points and analogies are plausible, there are some objections that are reasonable and should be considered when deciding the morality of copying music, movies, and software.
III. Objection & Reply
The above arguments rest on the assumption that companies are selling physical copies instead of use of the media. One may argue that since they bought a copy of a piece of media, that they are entitled to make any copies or backups of media they own. They are not paying for a single, physical copy; they are paying to view, hear, and/or use the media. If companies make money off of a copy that they sold to someone, then a buyer has paid their debt and should be able to do what they want with their copy. After all, consumers have property rights.
When defending this viewpoint, one needs to consider property rights. While media companies own the rights to their work, consumers also have property rights to the copies that they buy. The reply to this objection is that although buyers own the single copies that they buy from companies, they do not own the rights to the work that they buy. Consumers do not own the copyrighted work; they own a copy of the copyrighted work. If a piece of media is protected by copyright laws, only the companies that they buy from own the rights to make, copy, distribute, and claim ownership of the media that they own. While consumers have the right to lend, sell, or throw away their single copy, they do not have the right to copy and sell copies of that work. As stated before, companies copyright their media for the intended purpose of protecting their media from being copied, making it illegal to violate those laws. Buyers are indeed paying for a physical copy of the media they buy. Viewing, hearing, and/or using the media that companies sell is merely a privilege that comes with buying the physical copy.
To help refute the above viewpoint, the following analogy can be used. If the owner of a piece of land allows someone else to use a portion of their land, they are charging for the physical land, not the use of their land. If the user of the land were to have a picnic on that land and invited other people, the user of that portion of the land is still within their rights. They are not trying to distribute the land and make a profit off of it. But if the user of the land were to take their portion and charge other people for the use of it, they would be violating their rights. After all, the owner still owns the land, just like media companies still own the rights to their media and how the media can be used. The borrower of the land does not have the right to distribute the land as they please, since they do not actually own the land.
It is safe to conclude that in the case of copying music, movies, and software, copyright laws have some control over property rights, meaning that consumers cannot copy and distribute copies of copyrighted works, even if they bought an original, single copy.
IV. Conclusion
The purpose of this essay was to discuss and assess the morality of copying music, movies, and software and whether the intended use makes a difference. I addressed case #3, the ethics of copying music, movies, and software. It is my considered opinion that it is morally unacceptable to copy music, movies, and software. I defended my position by making use of analogies, making an appeal to consequences and argument by definition, and considering objections against my view.
Many media companies make it illegal and warn against copying music, movies, and software, as they should to prevent piracy.