in article k2hie0pr56t910abceci7is04r97vqj3jo@4ax.com, Raj Feridun at
rferid@NOSPAMyahoo.co.jp wrote on 7/5/04 9:07 PM:

> http://www.sundayherald.com/43167
> 
> So much for immoral.
> 
> Raj
> 

There was a truce, which you broke. I will respond only to the point you
raised, which is whether the subsequent announcements make your action any
less immoral. (I will assume that you admit that your action was illegal,
under US and Japanese law).

As an intellectual property lawyer, I have read with interest a lot of the
discussion relating to the legality and morality of peer to peer file
sharing. Basically, the arguments for the morality of such downloads all
into three arguments:

1. The Internet should be free, so since I have the ability to download
these files, I should have the right to do so.

2. Everyone is doing it.

3. I NEED to do it, because I want it now.

As to the first argument, just because you have the ability to do something
does not make it right. You have the ability to rob the local supermarket,
that doesn't mean it is a moral thing to do. (As to the Internet being
"free," that is a myth. Most have to pay for an ISP.)

As to the second argument, EVERYONE is not doing it. Only a significant
sector of the population is doing it, just like only a significant sector of
the population cheats on exams, and a significant sector of the population
beat up on their spouses.

As to the third argument (the argument you used), the world does NOT revolve
around you, and your desire for instant gratification does not equate to
moral justification.

None of the arguments proposed by people making illegal downloads really
justifies those illegal downloads.

But what about the subsequent permission by Moore? Doesn't that mean that an
otherwise immoral act is now moral? No, it doesn't. No it doesn't, any more
than the rapist who receives consent AFTER the fact, or the robber who robs
a house only to discover that the house is his own. At the time of the act,
the intent of the act was immoral.

What about the instance where Moore gives permission before the act and you
acted on that permission? That would probably be okay moral IF Moore really
had the complete rights to the picture and had not contracted away certain
rights in his distributor deal or financing deal.

I don't know about what contractual rights others had, so I really can't
determine if it was his right to give the permission he gave. My impression
of the man, based upon his own comments, is that he really doesn't care
about the law and the contractual rights of others.

Bottom line, IF Moore gave his permission before the act, and IF Moore was
not legally limited in his actions by previous contractual actions, and IF
your knew about Moore's permission before your act and had reasonable
grounds to believe that Moore had the legal right to give that permission,
then you are not an immoral sleaze ball (ISB). On the other hand, if any of
those suppositions are incorrect, then the ISB designation would aptly apply
to your actions.