Legal & Ethical Questions in the PC Audio Age

Tomcy6,

Personally, while I do agree that compassion and concern for your fellow man are worthy and admirable goals, your apparent condescension that us "supremely ethical people" are somehow hypocritical or unethical because we are buying stereo gear when others are starving is both disingenuous and misplaced. The very fact that you have posted on this thread means you own or have access to a computer. Could we "supremely ethical people" not repsond by asking why would you have such a decandent luxury when others are starving? See where this goes?

Let's face it, everything beyond food and water in life is a "want" not a "need." Therefore, since the only necessities in life are food and water, I can always say that purchasing ANYTHING beyond those necessities when others are starving is unethical (since they do NOT even have food and water - why should you have a house or electricity?). Do you have a watch, a car (other than say a beat up old Yugo), a TV, a PC, a refrigerator, a stove? Well, if so, others in Darfur or the Sudan or even America don't have those luxuries so, using your standard, you too are also one of us "supremely ethical people". I see how it appears that giving away a CD is somehow less offensive than not helping others who are less fortunate when we are buying expensive gear, but two things come to mind: (1) the guy who cannot afford even buying a CD can now accuse YOU of being unethical because you are buying CDs when he can't eat; and (2) giving away that CD is STILL not your copyrighted material to give away whereas at least the guy who buys expensive gear is only spending HIS money that he has the right to do. Does this make sense?

Being ethical IMHO does not necessarily mean we assume the absolute responsibility for the welfare of others. That said, I do think that charitable giving and care for others is a good thing and something we should aspire to. But singling out people who buy high-end audio as unethical because their money could be better spent in your opinion is a dangerous path to follow. Who then judges who has too much and who is decadent or wasteful? Yes, I DO see how looking at people who, in our opinion, waste sinful amounts of money when other are starving appears so imcompassionate. However, I don't think "unethical" is necessarily the adjective I'd use to describe them.

Even in a communist society, it is the governement that disributes the wealth and assumes the "responsibility" for the welfare of the masses.

Just my $.02 and, as always subject to opposing views and scrutiny.

Frank

Tomcy6,
It is a nice point but the truth of the matter, at least where food is concerned, is that there is absolutely no lack of food for anyone in this world. What we see is a lack of political will or resources, used to getting food from where it is grown to where it is needed. We have actually, as a world had plenty of food for the last 20 or 30 years. Political greed, monetary greed, lack of infrastructure have lead to famine, starvation, and privation but not a lack food. So being a glutton is fine because there is no lack only a very poor distribution system and some political inability to want people to be fed.

Poverty is a really bad thing and people shouldn't do it!

Seriously - I know (I hope) when I'm committing illegal act like unauthorized copying of CD or driving 56mpg in 55mpg zone but we have to remember that we are buying from the crooks who in collude are setting very high prices of CDs. Free competition is a joke. I remember investigation started by one of TV channels on the price of the cornflakes. And then suddenly there was complete silence. Was TV station paid or threaten? One should be as honest as possible and if not - should be at least true to himself and admit it but on the other hand we live between crooks of such scale that all our wrongdoings are pretty much like driving 56mpg in 55mpg zone.

Did you notice that SACDs (impossible to copy) are in order of $30 while manufacturing cost the same as regular CD. Should music be only privilege of some but not all people. I know that we need only water and food to live (everything else is want) but I don't consider it living.

Well I didn't think I would start a big discussion but I do appreciate the concerns everyone is showing. I suspect that in our modern society the problem has something to do with our fundamental values and the ease with which you can get away with something in a big city where you don't deal with the same people everyday, as you would in a small town.

Today money equates to self esteem much more than the pride of doing the right thing or behaving honorably. Advertisers constantly emphasize and brainwash us that what we buy is what defines us - perfume, watch, whisky, car, cellphone.

The pro sports player seems to feel quite justified if he/she gets away with a dirty tactic and wins. The fans may even cheer a dirty shot. Although not new there is something unsettling about this swing in modern behavior. In the past playing like a sportsman was so highly regarded nobody dared cheat if there was ever the slightest chance of getting caught. Now there is so much emphasis about winning that even our kids feel the pressure - and they are on the slippery slope at a very young age playing their video games where you can shoot people and there are no consequences (and you can find cheats online to each game). From Nancy Kerrigan being attacked in 1994 with a bar to steroid doping in many major sports it points to an "ends justify the means" mentality (as we no longer value the means) It is ok to cheat if you win! If a Hockey Dad needs to abuse the referee then that is what it sometimes takes to win!

However, there is hope with some fine people showing us the way !

Frank, thanks for your well written reply. Overall, I tend to agree with you. It's a shame more folks don't think that way about ethics, it would make the world a better place to live.

Cheers,
John