An article on Slashdot that reports the conviction of two P2P server operators, inspired these comments by readers, and gave me pause for thought.

From the article:
"Those who steal copyrighted material will be caught, even when they use the tools of technology to commit their crimes," U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft says in a statement. "The theft of intellectual property victimizes not only its owners and their employees, but also the American people, who shoulder the burden of increased costs for goods and services."

A reader replies:
If you don't like the law, work to change it. Don't think that you can get away with breaking it because you don't believe in it.

...and another:
Tell that to Rosa Parks.

***
Although those servers were distributing lots of software and stuff, this made me think about my own actions in regards to music downloading. And so here's my thoughts on that:

Although the analogy of civil rights can't be made to walk on it's own feet, I think it has more merit than Ashcroft's moral reasoning, which falls apart due to the complexity of the actual situation as opposed to the abstract principles on which his statements are made.

What I mean is this: The violation of copyright laws is a crime, and is so is wrong. But also wrong, however, is the system which those laws protect, and I subscribe to the standard arguments here, e.g. artists see little of the profits from sales, monopolies on concert tickets exist, costs to produce and distribute CDs are miniscule compared to price, etc.

Add to this the fact that CD sales have actually increased recently, and then factor in my own personal observation that people who download music actually buy more music because increased exposure to new artists and forms of music results in increased interest, and most people who download music eventually purchase some of the music from artists they download.

Finally, the laws which protect the holders of artist's copyrights are themselves protected by interest groups with plenty of money, who work to ensure that things stay status quo, no matter the need for change. If small record labels are protected, it's only because some big record labels stand to lose money on their aging and corrupt distribution systems.

On the other hand, I can't see downloading music as a form of civil disobedience, because when I download music, honestly, I'm not doing it with the intent to change any law, I'm doing it to satisfy my curiosity about an artist and save myself some bucks.

So who to support? Big businesses whose actions protect the little businesses and artists, but only so they can put them out of business or enslave them, or downloading lawbreakers who, let's face it, have no real intent to change the laws of society to benefit consumers, but only really want to save some bucks?

I guess in the end all issues of morality are actually material. A depressing thought.