Do u tink downloading music from the net with limewire is ethically wrong?

Question:I'm sitting in Intellectual Property Law class right now. We've discussed this question several times, of course.

I would say yes, it is ethically wrong. It is theft to use someone's intellectual property in a manner other than their intent and it harms their ability to profit from their work and thus lowers their incentive to produce their work. If they want to allow samples or release lower quality versions to be freely distributed, that's up to them to decide that's a good way to advertise or not, it's not up to us to make that decision for them.

Still, I was a freshmen in college at the height of the original Napster. I don't know anyone who illegally downloaded less than a thousand songs that year. We all learned a lot about a lot of music that we wouldn't have otherwise been exposed to and many people later purchased albums they otherwise would not have. Many people also didn't purchase albums they otherwise would have. Either way, we took the choice of how to promote music away from the artists and labels.

Here's a quote from a comedian who sumarizes the moral judgements involved (by the way, my quotation of this commedian is covered by fair use and I would attribute it to him if I remembered his name. I saw it on Last Comic Standing. He didn't make the first cut.):

"Have you ever seen on DVD's that little ad they play at the beginning:
'You wouldn't steal money'
'You wouldn't steal a car'
'So why would you steal a movie?'
'DVD piracy is stealing'.
Well, it probably is stealing and no, I wouldn't steal a car. But, if my friend just bought a new car and said 'would you like me to burn you a copy?', I reckon I'd consider it."

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: I'm sitting in Intellectual Property Law class right now. We've discussed this question several times, of course.

I would say yes, it is ethically wrong. It is theft to use someone's intellectual property in a manner other than their intent and it harms their ability to profit from their work and thus lowers their incentive to produce their work. If they want to allow samples or release lower quality versions to be freely distributed, that's up to them to decide that's a good way to advertise or not, it's not up to us to make that decision for them.

Still, I was a freshmen in college at the height of the original Napster. I don't know anyone who illegally downloaded less than a thousand songs that year. We all learned a lot about a lot of music that we wouldn't have otherwise been exposed to and many people later purchased albums they otherwise would not have. Many people also didn't purchase albums they otherwise would have. Either way, we took the choice of how to promote music away from the artists and labels.

Here's a quote from a comedian who sumarizes the moral judgements involved (by the way, my quotation of this commedian is covered by fair use and I would attribute it to him if I remembered his name. I saw it on Last Comic Standing. He didn't make the first cut.):

"Have you ever seen on DVD's that little ad they play at the beginning:
'You wouldn't steal money'
'You wouldn't steal a car'
'So why would you steal a movie?'
'DVD piracy is stealing'.
Well, it probably is stealing and no, I wouldn't steal a car. But, if my friend just bought a new car and said 'would you like me to burn you a copy?', I reckon I'd consider it."

Such a great question...and one I haven't the answer to; but, I will give you are star for interesting because I believe this is something that needs to be considered.

Of course not.
People share music, movies, etc.
It is ethically wrong not to do it.

Nope, chances are I would never listen to them otherwise.

We both lose that way.

I'm not going to say no just because I do it. That is rationalization, not logic. I would like to ask anyone who makes music out there if they wold still make their music even if they received little or no profit?

It depends a lot on what ethical system you use.

A utilitarian would probably be in favour of it. The rock star is still rich even if they only get two million instead of three million dollars. And you're much happier having the song. Everybody wins.

A deontologist would be entirely against it. You are taking something you don't have a right to. As Kant would point out, if everyone stole all their music, there would be almost no music to steal - all the production companies would be bankrupt and all the artists would be working at day jobs.

I know there are musicians who make music just for the love of it. They would keep doing it even if they never earned a dime. Still, if they are afforded the opportunity to quit their day jobs or go on tour, they can do a lot more of what you and they like.

So what's important to you?

I see nothing wrong with downloading free music from anywhere on the net!

Harleigh Kyson Jr.