Is+it+every+Permissible+to+illegally+download+content+from+the+Internet++-+Final+Essay+-+Victor+G

** Illegally download content. Is it ever permissible? ** Victor Garcia Pineda 1269063827 ** Victor Garcia

** ** Escuela Internacional Sampedrana **


 * Abstract**

A commonly debated topic has been “Is it ever permissible to download internet content illegally?” To consider and answer to this question a person must have a defined philosophical background as its response differs from

one theory to another. Morality is one of the most important factors to consider this act permissible or not acceptable. Philosophies like the Utilitarian and Confucianism agree it is permissible because of communal benefit

and compensation. Other theories like Kantian Ethics would argue that if someone is denied the right to download anything illegally, then it is morally incorrect for everybody to download content illegally. Stealing someone´s

creative endeavour is morally incorrect and is also a social crime.

**Illegally download content, is it ever permissible?**

“It is not called illegal download, it’s called file-sharing.” That is one of the most common phrases that you hear from people who are used to illegally download programs, music and videos from the Internet. They say “illegal

download” sounds too harsh and they consider there is not such thing as that term. This topic’s controversy has been increasing as we approach more and more into a technological era. In the past, when the Internet was

not a word in people’s vocabulary, morals about downloading content illegally were not boarded. So if people are debating it, what is it that makes illegal downloads illegal? The actual definition of illegal download is “using

someone else’s intellectual property without permission” (Paquette, 2002). When you are downloading illegal content you never ask for permission to the copyright owners. So, is it ever permissible to illegally download

music, videos and programs? No, it is never permissible to download content from the Internet illegally because you are never asking for the permission to download someone’s intellectual property or creative endeavour.

When we talk about illegal downloads the thing that critiques it the most are morals. Morals might not be the same for everyone, but when it comes to violation of someone else’s intellectual property, copyright owners and

creators are pretty much against it because they value the ownership of their creative endeavours. In many countries such as the United States, Mexico and European Union affiliates, copyright, patents, or trademark laws

recognize the creators of music, videos and computer programs ownership. Yes, laws. There has been a consensus on the protection of creation because stealing creative endeavors is morally wrong. A Kantian ethicist for

example, would argue that if it is morally incorrect for one person to download content from the Internet illegally, then it is not morally acceptable for anyone to download content from the Internet illegally (Paquette, 2002).

Another case when morality strikes in this topic, is lying and violation of privacy statement. Have you ever come across those long statements that appear when you buy program or any content? Maybe you have, but never

really taken the time to read it and examine what information it displays. The truth about these privacy statements is that in about a million or so words it says that you explicitly “do not have the right to copy or reproduce”

such information. At the end it gives you a little nasty warning that you can be fined with thousands of dollars and serve time in prison. So when you download illegally their content, you are lying and also committing a

crime. “It is file-sharing and there is nothing wrong with it”. That is what people that enjoy violating laws and stealing the creative endeavors of other people. These people might have these ideas from philosophies such as

Confucianism. Confucians say that the creator of the music, movies and programs “do not necessarily have the right to own the fruits of their labor” (Paquette, 2002). Other way that Confucians would try to take another

approach to the topic is by taking a communal approach. By communal approach we are referring to the belief that everything should be free, meaning offered and shared for the benefit of everyone in the community. In the

year 2000, Napster, which is a famous p2p file-sharing service, was filed a lawsuit by the rock band Metallica. The much publicized lawsuit was filed because Napster allegedly freely distributing the song “I Disappear”

before the official launch. This distribution also caused many radio networks to acquire the song and play it on their show which was illegal.

Opposition statements that say downloading illegal content from the Internet is not a crime are fallacious. Take the argument that says that people do not have the right to own what they create. This Confucian idea seems

a little absurd because there is no thing that backs that up. In the other Confucian belief of communal approach it is something that depends on the creator of the content. Clearly some things were not mean to be

communal for the creator. Utilitarians have a different approach. They state that “the number of people who benefit from hearing recorded music free of charge outweighs the number who are hurt by loosing income”

(Paquette, 2002). There are some software and samples that the creator has created for the download of everybody with the possibility of reproduction and communal use. These types of download are permitted because

they are meant to be explicitly distributed freely by the copyright owners. These philosophies that say it is correct to steal simply look at the communal benefit, not the damage of physically stealing.

Downloading illegal music, videos and programs that are prohibited by the copyright owners is never permissible. Even though people say it is permissible because it is a collaboration of many people, they are wrong

because it is never acceptable t o steal. Privacy statements are created by authors and creators to inform about what is not permissible to do with their software. As some Kantian ethicists argue “if it is morally incorrect for

one person to download content from the Internet illegally, then it is not morally acceptable for anyone. Although people might be in need of programs for example, it is still never permissible to obtain it illegally if there is a

choice to download it legally. If it causes someone concern it is wrong and should respect creative endeavours.


 * Bibliography**

"File sharing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." //Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia//. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2010. <[]>.

ISP-Planet - ISP Politics - Napster brings campus networks to their knees. (n.d.).//ISP-Planet - Resources and Information for ISPs, Hosts, Data Centers, WISPs, and Internet Access Providers//. Retrieved March 20, 2010, from http://www.isp-planet.com/politics/napster.htm

Koller, John. (2006). //Asian philosophies//. Prentice Hall.

morals. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved March 13, 2010, from Dictionary.com website: [] Napster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (n.d.).//Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia//. Retrieved March 20, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster Paquette, Paul. (2002). //Philosophy//. McGraw-Hill Ryerson.