A Question Posed: IP Ethics

While researching material for my paper, I came across a simple statement that essentially argued the following (not quoted, but I am paraphrasing the idea):

While the average person would react with shock to the idea of stealing a $1 pen or candy bar from the local store, he or she seems far less prone to react with the same shock towards the theft of digital knowledge products such as $100 software. Instead, it is far more often the opposite reaction, and the person acquires unlicensed, illicit copies of said software without any thoughts of guilt.
-Intellectual Property: Moral, Legal, and International Dilemmas

Which brings me to wonder—is the very idea of natural law a bogus concept in matters of ownership? Is there no clear moral code regarding theft? Is there then, no real respect for property and ownership within the average man? Is the only reason we are thieves of knowledge but not of concrete products the fear of reprisal and punishment? That then, is my issue: at first glance, it appears that humanity does indeed inhabit a Lord of the Flies type world, and we sink to the lowest permissible level. I already am a proponent of the idea of humanity on a fine line between id and superego, inspiration demonic and divine. So what do these circumstances say about our nature and our patterns of behaviour? How is it that our consciences justify theft? Are we mere animals—that the idea of a “conscience” is a myth and we function on a far more carnal and hedonistic level—giving in to all our decadent whims only to be checked by matters of punishment or reprisal?

I admit that I’d adopting a line of ultra-hyperbole and spinning catastrophic tales of doom, but seriously, take a moment and consider this case. Most of my readers have most likely pilfered mp3s and movie files… how do you justify it? These are probably fairly easy—most intellectual property laws include a “fair use” clause—a clause that has been reduced and under attack by corporations in recent years. So this pilfering may simply represent a counterattack from the user side to reassert the balance of owner-user rights. However, I argue that for many, that perhaps was only the beginning of the battle. Now, convenience and instant gratification rule from twin thrones. Values and respect for all parties involved in the transaction has rapidly evaporated to the point that users no longer even conceive of someone working hard to develop the product of their enjoyment that they now enjoy for free. With art (under which I include music, and in some circumstances movies and television, although these latter items are more specifically entertainment—a for pay good), value is often freely given. For these items, a moral argument can surely be formulated and waged against those arguing greater protection. However, what is the user’s response to software theft? I argue that this is a greater wrong, a theft in which the loophole is much harder to discover. Many programmers put in countless hours slaving over these systems, and for many corporations, the “expensive tag” is an accurate reflection of development costs. With the Microsofts of the world, there will surely be some Robin Hood’s arguing redistribution of wealth due to Microsoft’s cash stockpiles, but I find the position hard to justify, especially considering the generous grants given to student prices (I say this since it is the students who most often are in the front lines of this battle and feel they are somehow disenfranchised). If a user truly wants to right wrongs and fight for equality, he/she is better served pouring their efforts into developing for the free and open public domain—consider, counter products that ARE compatible with MS Office DO exist, but Office piracy is the more common event.

Another argument that often surfaces is a motif of “trying it out” or “I don’t use it enough to pay for it.” In response, I say: if you don’t have the money to buy a Rolex watch or a Ferrari, you can’t “borrow” one for your big nights out on the town. We are not entitled to “something for nothing”—there are many things in this life that will remain out of our grasp without hard work, sweat, and effort. Until then, that door is closed—we can’t simply borrow when it’s convenient, test it out, and throw it away. One of the few arguments I can accept is the idea that through temporary theft the user is empowered to cut through owner illusions and see the product, as it truly is—a computer game for example. However, this is a dangerous argument, in that we can quite quickly exhaust the utility and entertainment value from a game and then decide that we won’t buy the product after all—even though we have gotten several hours entertainment out of it. If the “test drive” comes with the true and honest intention of possible legal purchase, I can perhaps be convinced--except for the fact that legal demos exist in abundance and should be appropriate for these purposes themselves.

This is a long post, but my argument is not fully developed. Nor am I myself exonerated from guilt. I ask that we consider the implications of our actions, truly question our motives, and realistically evaluate their effects. Our actions speak as if we value plastic pens more highly than software than is the product of countless hours of work. We must occasionally tell ourselves “no” and we have a duty to respect and honour the achievement and work of others. If it’s meant to be free,the owner will make it so—not the user!