Should I Download That?

Dec 11th, 2006

Would you steal a purse? How about a video game? Would you enter a store and walk out with a CD that you didn't pay for? Our society's modern advances in technology have lead us to ask new questions about what is ethically right, and even question whether digital data should be considered a physical asset someone can have rights over. In this essay, I will cover the more recent arguments against the copying of intellectual property as well as touch on the arguments of those who oppose copyright law. I will also be discussing the basic principles of copyright, patents and the morals behind protecting inventors, scientists, and artists alike. In turn, I will use Kant's theory to show how the current social views clearly point toward intellectual property being subject to the same kind of law that has protected a centuries worth of inventions and art from the prying hands of those who would attempt to use others hard work without consent from the author. I will also use Kant's theory to display how society could not exist without these moral principles that the government has used to create laws.

Governments around the world have implemented copyright laws to protect ingenuity of all sorts. If we take a look at Part I, Section 3.(1), 'Copyright and Moral Rights in Works' of the Canadian Copyright Act it states the following: "For the purposes of this Act, "copyright", in relation to a work, means the sole right to produce or reproduce the work or any substantial part thereof in any material form whatever to perform the work or any substantial part thereof in public or, if the work is unpublished, to publish the work or any substantial part thereof [...]". (Department of Justice Canada) The government does not do this to disadvantage consumers. The government does this to promote creativity and originality. If an artist's song was not protected by government law what would stop a fellow artist from stealing that song? Suppose the song was truly a masterpiece and this person who used the song and distributed it as his own work made a fortune off of it. Now the real author of that song pawns off his guitar in order to put food on the table and his creativity is never seen again. Does this seem at all right? Authors, inventors, artists, and scientists all work to make money just as a blue-collar worker works to make money. The only difference is that artists and the like are being paid for their creativity and ideas while a factory worker is being paid for the use of his physical labour. Some people are more than capable in using their physical labour while others are much more attuned to using their creativity. In the case of the blue-collar worker we all know that the government has established many rules and regulations in order to protect workers. It seems only fair that the same should be done for those people who use their creativity to make a living.

New technologies emerge each and every day. Along with these new technologies emerge new ideas, new ways of thinking and lead to new ways of life. It is only logical to adapt the law to compensate for new and emerging technologies. Most people who violate these laws by illegally downloading intellectual properties would agree that copying a book is wrong. Yet a book was at one time a new technology. In today's modern society the main forms of distributing information and media is electronic. It only makes sense to protect these advanced forms of information distribution and to enforce the laws that most people had accepted until it was made easy for individuals to break them.

So why do people do it? Why do some people decide its right to take other people's work without consent from the author? Some say it's because they can't afford to buy the product. This reasoning is absolutely absurd. After all, I can not afford a flat screen plasma TV but that doesn't mean I'm going to hold up the local TV store. A very big argument is that large companies and big artists already have enough money. This reasoning is flawed in two ways. Firstly, if consumers decided why buy the products when they can download them for free, the company would make no profits and would go bankrupt. Second, just because an artist is successful does not justify stealing from them. That would be like saying, "My father has more money than me, and therefore I can take some from him." Another argument would be that they wouldn't buy the product at retail price anyway or that they would just like to try it out and if they are satisfied enough would purchase it. Unfortunately these views are also absurd. It is the company that decides how to market its products. Not the consumers who would like to test it out. The last point people try to make is that everyone participates in illegal downloading and not to do so would be foolish. An easily acceptable, straightforward answer to this would be that just because someone does something does not make it right. Even if the majority of people were to do something it does not actually make it right. (Barrett) One hundred years ago slavery was considered right by the majority of people. So again we are left with the question: why? Why do people do it? Generally I believe it's a simple matter of being able to. If the consequences were enforced and severe enough to scare people to not do it than they would not do it. But the consequences are not enforced and so illegal downloading persists. If there was no security in shopping malls and anyone could just walk in and take whatever they wanted; no questions asked and no consequences, do you think that people wouldn't do it because it's morally