|
E-Scruples
|
09-Jan-2009
|
|
It was one thing to say that society was on a morality slippery slope back in the '60s and '70s, and, it was..., but such acts were committed with a sense of revolution, purpose, and whatever other excuse people could think of for justification (I, personally, do not agree, but that is neither here nor there). Today I find the matter significantly worse, if for no other reason than the Internet has proved how nonchalant a surprising majority of people will be about their morals and scruples when, seemingly, no one is watching. A look...
The Moral Dilemma
As stated, practically everybody is a thief, to some extent, and for one reason or another. Even people you wouldn't suspect (I can think of at least one priest who has bootlegged music...) have partaken in the...not so forbidden art. The real question is, why?
If nothing else, digital fingerprints hold up better than real world ones. Your digital tracks are definite, provable, and all-too “Big Brother”ish. At least in real life you have a chance. The thing is, people don't really care if a machine sees them steal, at least not the amateur criminal. In particular, when peering into your monitor, you have the tendency not to think that it's peering right back at you; well, guess what, it is!
That being said isn't enough, for, everyone remembers Napster...from about ten years ago. Nothing really big happened, right? Only a few people were taken to court, right? I'm one of millions, I'll play the odds; I also bought a lottery ticket, want to see my wish list! And, although not necessarily equal odds, you realistically do stand about the same chance for winning the lottery as you do for being prosecuted for petty online theft. At some point, the Second Age 'Zeitgeist' equated insignificant odds of prosecution with moral ambiguity and acceptance. Slippery slope, indeed.
A Hint Of Justification...?
Despite thievery being wrong, there are some surprisingly valid arguments (at least one of which I myself adhere to) in favor of what copyright holders would have you believe is thievery. So, let us look at this a little more objectively:
It's No Longer Available For Purchase
Despite remakes galore and classic-conversion-to-DVD in abundance, there are in fact many media productions that are not for sale today. This could be due to a number of reasons, namely cult-status, unprofitability, limited releases, company death, media death, et cetera. All of these are perfectly valid reasons, as deemed by the copyright holder, to discontinue production of the media in question. That being said, should the production itself die as well, simply because the previously chosen media is no longer present? Granted, it is one thing to say that you would buy something if available, and another to actually do so, nonetheless; it is a certainly valid argument (and by argument I mean that there are two valid sides in the debate).
Unrealistic Technical/Logistical Difficulties
Despite some things being readily available, their delivery systems might not necessarily be, or the products might not be in the right form. This is particularly true of international cross-overs of all flavors; be it movies, games, software, et cetera. I myself am a fan of a particular Japanese game that experienced great success in American cross-overs. Despite this success, not all successive versions of the game were in fact released in English. I genuinely feel it is a bit excessive to release a product that did its' job and got me hooked, and then cut me off with Japanese only versions leaving me the exclusive legal alternative to learn Japanese. As useful a skill as that may be, it's just not going to happen; not today, anyway. That being said, some programmer(s) got together and created a hack version that is the game, but in English. It is of course freely distributed, so I did not pay anything for it. Would I have prefered a legitimate version? Of course. Was one available to me? Realistically, no. Did the copyright holder make any genuine effort to make one available to me? Realistically, no. Is this bending the scruples a bit? Of course. However, don't give a baby a lolly pop, take it away, and expect it not to cry for more.
What To Do?!?
For such a cut and dry issue, it is surprisingly complex and...not so cut and dry. Whereas outright thievery is clearly wrong and should be squelched; just what defines copyright infringement if the particular product in a particular form does not exist? If a company makes the asserted decision to neglect a market, should that market necessarily be void of that product in question? In some cases, it's a fine line. As far as this issue is concerned, I think it's more important to have a clearly defined conscience, and make decisions that act accordingly; at least then you have an excuse, as do I. |
|
