Annoying rules

[Ifat Glassman]

* Suppose all CDs and songs for download begin selling under condition of private listening only. This means, that one should take care to prevent others from hearing that music (use headphones, not be able to let friends hear music with you, etc').

* Suppose your dormitory supervisor decides that no personal heater should be used in the winter in the rooms (instead, your ass should freeze to death to make sure the rooms stay safe).

* Suppose you want to get into a movie, and you're 16 and a half but the movie requires an age> 17.

* Suppose there is a stop light but the road is empty at the time you want to cross.

What is the best thing to do in these cases? Should I obey the law and keep my honesty, break the law, lie if needed, and ignore senseless rules, or openly attempt to fight every silly rule imposed on me?

There are two classes of such silly rules that I see: One where the rule is meant for your own safety, and no rights are violated by breaking it (though there is a possible punishment for breaking it), and the second is one involving disobeying a contract of a deal (like in the dormitory case, and music case).

What I did in the dormitory case, is just use my heater, keep my health, and conceal it when there was checkup. The effort and money that would go into finding and living in a new apartment, or openly attempt to fight their irrational demand, was apparently a price higher than not lying for me.

However, I would appreciate some perspective of this from an ethical point of view. Especially, I would welcome anyone who can justify breaking the law in such cases, so I can feel good about it . Thanks!

[spatz!]

Regarding the two later rules, you should proceed as best benefits you.

As for the first two, a contract is a contract, but it's unlikely that rules so unrealistic will be taken seriously by anyone, and ultimately be revised. -.-'

[Ifat Glassman]

Regarding the two later rules, you should proceed as best benefits you.

As for the first two, a contract is a contract, but it's unlikely that rules so unrealistic will be taken seriously by anyone, and ultimately be revised. -.-'

Huh! What about how some new CDs don't allow you to copy the music to your computer (for personal use) or to copy it to your mp3 player (or something similar). Oh, no no, you want to have the song on your player? you need to buy the whole album again in pieces. Lending the disc to a friend? prohibited. Want to use it in a party? Oh no, public performance is not allowed.

What next? eggs that come with instruction "for scrambled egg only"?

[DavidOdden]

* Suppose all CDs and songs for download begin selling under condition of private listening only.

Do not steal. Theft is immoral. It is not your property to dispose of as you wish.

* Suppose your dormitory supervisor decides that no personal heater should be used in the winter in the rooms (instead, your ass should freeze to death to make sure the rooms stay safe).

Then move out and live somewhere else.

* Suppose you want to get into a movie, and you're 16 and a half but the movie requires an age> 17.

Then wait 6 months, or find a theater that wil let you in at age 15.5.

Generalization 1 covers the above. You should be able to figure out what that is

Suppose there is a stop light but the road is empty at the time you want to cross.

Cross at your own risk. Generalization 2 covers that.

However, I would appreciate some perspective of this from an ethical point of view. Especially, I would welcome anyone who can justify breaking the law in such cases, so I can feel good about it

Your conduct was very immoral and you should be deeply ashamed of yourself, although obviously you aren't, so what is the real point? If you saw a fancy new car with the keys in it and you think you can get away with stealing it, would it be okay because the car was a greater value to you?

[KendallJ]

What next? eggs that come with instruction "for scrambled egg only"?

Well, eggs aren't copyrighted. so that seems like a fallacious comparison.

[Viking]

Cross at your own risk. Generalization 2 covers that.

This seems to be inconsistent with the rest of your post. If the person who owns the road has that ^ as one of his rules, and has said you may use my property how you wish, if you follow the rules, then are you not in violation of "It is not your property to dispose of as you wish" if you cross the road regardless?

[DavidOdden]

If the person who owns the road has that ^ as one of his rules, and has said you may use my property how you wish, if you follow the rules, then are you not in violation of "It is not your property to dispose of as you wish" if you cross the road regardless?

We're not assuming a society where road-crossing is contractual.

[softwareNerd]

What next? eggs that come with instruction "for scrambled egg only"?

There's also the issue of when one is told. If you bring the eggs home and there's a note inside the box, giving you a recipe and saying you're not allowed to eat them unless you scramble them, then I don't see that you're obliged to do so. On the other hand, since we're speaking morality and not legality, the absence of a notice should not be an excuse if you really do know what the understanding is in the particular situation.

Do CDs come with a rule that you can't lend them to a friend? Would that be "unauthorised use"? I don't know how the law stands. I've assumed that CDs were like books, that one could lend them, but not give away copies (nor keep a copy while selling the original on EBay).

As for copying a CD to another medium for one's own use, I think US law permits that, up to a point (i.e. a few copies for personal use). [This should come with the caveat that everything the law allows need not be ethical.] Indeed, it was Sony that pushed for recording programs to be considered "fair use". (Search for "Betamax case").

[DavidOdden]

There's also the issue of when one is told. If you bring the eggs home and there's a note inside the box, giving you a recipe and saying you're not allowed to eat them unless you scramble them, then I don't see that you're obliged to do so. On the other hand, since we're speaking morality and not legality, the absence of a notice should not be an excuse if you really do know what the understanding is in the particular situation.

I think the issue is whether one can ever reasonably understand a sale of eggs as being anything other than an actual sale of eggs. In some Martian universe where one doesn't simply go to the store and unconditionally buy stuff, sure, but unless there is a clear contract to make the transfer of ownership be conditioned by how you end up using the goods, writing "for scrambled eggs only" on the top of the box doesn't have any relevance, except as a cute advertising ploy. A signed contract would.

Do CDs come with a rule that you can't lend them to a friend?

No, for similar reasons. You can led or give away the original; you cannot make any copies much less make one and give it away.

As for copying a CD to another medium for one's own use, I think US law permits that, up to a point (i.e. a few copies for personal use).

I'm not sure that that's so. It has become de-facto practice and that in itself may define the law in our common-law practice, but except for the business of making backup copies of software, I don't think there is any "personal use" exception to copyright law. Bearing in mind that Sony wasn't directly about whether copying for personal use is infringement, there are a number of important differences between making yourself a bunch of extra copies and time-shifting a TV show. For one, time-shifting has no effect on the market and making extra copies does -- if you wanted to have a copy of the CD for home, the car and work, that's three copies. By stealing two copies, you've affected the marked negatively by a larger factor than you're positively affected it (by buying one copy). In addition, the case was largely about an "intrinsically infringing" device, which in fact the studios could not estalish (there are plenty of non-infringing uses). The court basically punted on the question of whether individuals were infringing my making unauthorized copies, since that was not before them (i.e. Sony wasn't being sued for actual infringement, it was for contributory infringement, and the plaintiffs failed to prove actual damage from unauthorized copying).

[Drew1776]

* Suppose all CDs and songs for download begin selling under condition of private listening only. This means, that one should take care to prevent others from hearing that music (use headphones, not be able to let friends hear music with you, etc').

This issue has been discussed at length in other topics. However my personal opinion, which seems to be contrary to The Objectivist position promulgated by people on this forum, is that when I buy a CD I can do what I want with it and the material contained within. I wouldn't think twice about attempting to circumvent copywrite protection devices on a CD provided I was making a copy for personal use. [This is of course assuming that I'm not "sharing" the music with friends or the world which is stealing.]

* Suppose your dormitory supervisor decides that no personal heater should be used in the winter in the rooms (instead, your ass should freeze to death to make sure the rooms stay safe).

Stupid rules were made to be broken. I went to a public University which operates on stolen funds including those stolen from myself and my parents. So if they think they are going to steal my money and then try to tell me what to do, Forget it. (Now if we're talking about the police that's another story (see below).

* Suppose you want to get into a movie, and you're 16 and a half but the movie requires an age> 17.

Age restrictions on movies are completely arbitrary and immoral. You have no obligation moral or otherwise to follow an immoral law. Of all your questions this is the most cut and dry for me.

* Suppose there is a stop light but the road is empty at the time you want to cross.

I'd wait at the light for fear that the police would catch me and give me a ticket. Is it immoral to safely go through a red light? Absolutely not. The only thing that keeps me in line is fear.

[DavidOdden]

Stupid rules were made to be broken.

I'd just like to point out that this is a repudiation of Objectivist ethics -- this is the anarchist "ethics".

Age restrictions on movies are completely arbitrary and immoral. You have no obligation moral or otherwise to follow an immoral law.

The question is not whether there is a law against letting minors see the movie, which there is not, but whether the owner of the theater has a right to impose whatever restrictions on people entering his place of business. You're advocating trespassing. If I want to run a movie theater that only admits gay men and a straight man or some woman gets all huffy about my restrictions and decides "I have just as much right to see this movie as the next person, so I'm gonna break in to the theater, despite his stupid rules", you have implicitly accepted the mob credo, that no may has a right to his own property, that all property is held communally for the benefit of the tribe. It does not matter of the rule is stupid, it is his property and so he has the right to make those rules.

[Qwertz]

About movie ratings, David is right: there is no force of law behind the ratings system. If a theatre lets a 13-year-old into an R-rated picture, no law is broken. There might be (and usually is) a contract violation, though. The theatre has a contract with the distributor, who has a contract with the MPAA. The MPAA requires distributors to require theatres to adhere to ratings restrictions. If the theatre disobeys, the distributor (and the MPAA) can refuse to supply the theatre with films for exhibition in the future. Though this rarely happens, as the MPAA and distributors have a very strong interest in exhibiting films.

(Sometimes NATO [National Association of Theatre Owners] gets involved, too. They require member theatres to adhere to MPAA ratings guidelines, and as a voluntary, private association, they have their own private sanctions available, just like the MPAA does.)

Technically, there isn't even a law prohibiting a minor from going to see a pornographic film. There is a law prohibiting the theatre from letting the minor in. I suppose you could argue that the minor is trespassing because the ticket purchase contract is void as against public policy, and so no consent exists for the minor to be on the theatre's property.

In either case, the person seeking entry to the film in opposition to the rule is not enjoined. The theatre is. The person seeking entry is only enjoined by trespass law when the theatre refuses to consent, or is prohibited from consenting by law.

Movie ratings may seem arbitrary, but there are actually complex marketing strategies behind them. While it is true that no fixed number of "eff bombs" will bump a PG-13 up to an R, the content rules (arbitrary as they are) have little effect on the ratings process. Ratings are used more to market films, not just from a target-audience perspective, but from a parental perspective, too. Parents are more likely to give their children money for tickets if they think they know something about the movie beforehand. While content can result in a producer getting a rating other than what he asked for, this is the rare case (and sometimes can improve marketing strategies: see your local DVD store and anything labeled "the unrated cut."

As far as lending CDs, so long as you aren't charging, or loaning (for fee or for free) to the public at large, I understand it is acceptable. The prohibitions against copying still apply, though. Just because your friend didn't buy the CD doesn't mean he isn't bound by the copyright. As long as 'lending' is actually 'gifting,' whereby I 'give' you my CD, retaining no copy for myself and in exchange for no consideration, it's okay. The quirky stuff comes in when you try to sell the CD (which you can do) and then try to buy it back (which I'd argue you cannot do if the buyback price is less than the initial sale price, because this would be too much like rental).

Libraries and video stores buy special public library and public rental licenses, respectively.

-Q

PS:

seems

Seems, [sir]? Nay, it is. I know not 'seems.'

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

[Ifat Glassman]

First about lending/copying CDs to another medium:

Check out the tiny lines at the bottom of the following CD: Elton John- Love songs CD, back cover.

It says: "Unauthorized copying reproduction, hiring, lending, public performance and broadcast prohibited."

So even if I buy the music, I am still not allowed to copy it to my PC, mp3 player, lend it to a friend, or play it in a party. So eggs for scrambled eggs only? not that far fetched.

Edited March 6, 2007 by ifatart

[RationalBiker]

So even if I buy the music, I am still not allowed to copy it to my PC, mp3 player, lend it to a friend, or play it in a party. So eggs for scrambled eggs only? not that far fetched.

So if you don't agree with the conditions, you don't buy it. That's pretty much the same with any voluntary trade. Would you buy a car or a house that had severe restrictions to its use that you didn't like?

If only consumers realized that if they don't agree with conditions of how a product is sold and they refused to buy the product under those conditions, the producer would have to alter the terms of sale to stay in business or they can stop selling product.

[Ifat Glassman]

Do not steal. Theft is immoral. It is not your property to dispose of as you wish.

I do not steal.

I think there is a legitimate claim for lending and copying the music to one's player/PC: The claim is that up until now, CDs have been sold with the assumption that you purchase the music with much more freedom of use. The restriction this CD comes with is not emphasized. I was not aware of this limitation when I bought the CD. It is just like they would put a little note inside the egg box. I think that when somebody changes the terms of a famous, standard contract, they should make it loud and clear. In this case they didn't. I bought the CD thinking I can use it like any other normal CD.

From now on, however, I will check CDs for such a label, and will not use it against instruction.

Then wait 6 months, or find a theater that wil let you in at age 15.5.

I don't see a reason to follow this rule (theater). The age rule is meant to protect me. It is meant to make sure that parents in our society sleep well at night, knowing that the tender souls of the youth was not exposed to sex and violence.

But if my parents allow me to see this movie, I don't see a reason to not see it, just because someone else decided that it's not for me. I am not stealing anything from anyone by seeing it (in fact I am paying money), I simply do not allow someone else to dictate conditions for what is good/bad for me to see (other than my parents). No harm is done to anyone, nothing was stolen.

I see the crossing the road as being the exact same case: there is a rule meant to protect my own life. Should I follow this rule like an obedient robot, or use my judgement? if the road is empty at 3 AM, there is no reason to stand there like a moron, waiting for the light to turn. I don't think that moral perfection is achieved by following each and every rule like a robot. No sire.

Generalization 1 covers the above. You should be able to figure out what that is.

...

Cross at your own risk. Generalization 2 covers that.

Generalization 1 is clear: do not breach contract "it is not your property to dispose of as you wish".

What is generalization 2? What makes the road-crossing case different from the theater case?

If you saw a fancy new car with the keys in it and you think you can get away with stealing it, would it be okay because the car was a greater value to you?

Having a sound morality to guide my life is more important than having a car. Morality helps me guide my life the best way possible, and to achieve the maximum joy possible for me. If I can have no joy, there is no point in having a car.

Since I act by principle, and morality is a set of principles as well, I can't hold integrity as a virtue and steal at the same time, without damaging my ability to integrate knowledge.

This is why I am here: I want to integrate my knowledge in this subject.

[softwareNerd]

IThe age rule is meant to protect me. It is meant to make sure that parents in our society sleep well at night, knowing that the tender souls of the youth was not exposed to sex and violence. But if my parents allow me to see this movie, I don't see a reason to not see it, ...

If the theatre owner does not want you to see the movie, because of your age, or whatever, that is his right. However, I think the moral case you're making is that the theatre owner really does not care, and is simply doing something that a bunch of parents want him to do. If those fact are true, I think you have a good moral (though no legal) argument.

... up until now, CDs have been sold with the assumption that you purchase the music with much more freedom of use. ...I bought the CD thinking I can use it like any other normal CD. From now on, however, I will check CDs for such a label, and will not use it against instruction.

Is this true, or is it that you misunderstood the rules? For instance, is it true that CDs that do not have this notice may be copied for personal use? What does this special notice say?

[Ifat Glassman]

Is this true, or is it that you misunderstood the rules? For instance, is it true that CDs that do not have this notice may be copied for personal use? What does this special notice say?

Let's assume that nothing was ever said about what can be done with the CD one purchases. (This is actually also the case for me, and apparently you, who are asking this question).

If there is nothing extra said or written as you purchase the CD, you have freedom to do as you please with it, as long as you don't violate anyone's rights.

The meaning of buying the CD is primarily buying the right to use the music. When you buy a CD you do not buy a piece of plastic, you buy the music in it (unless stated otherwise, for example: you buy the right to use the music only in a stereo system and not publicly). The default of buying a CD is buying the right to use the music in it.

Assuming you also bought your computer, As far as I see you paid fair and square to everyone involved in the product you wish to have: music stored on your PC. No right has been violated in this case, and so I find it 100% moral and legal (as far as I know).

To take this a step further, if you also bought a windows OS, which includes WMP (able to convert songs from a CD to mp3 format), and you bought an mp3 player, you have paid everyone involved in the product you wish to have, which is music in mp3 format stored on your mp3 player.

Point is, a contract is here to specify limitations more detailed than the ones the law provides. If there are no such limitations in the contract, the default is freedom (until this freedom collides with individual rights).

[RationalBiker]

I don't see a reason to follow this rule (theater).

You do realize that you are in essence saying you do not respect the private property rights of other people, in this particular instance theater owners?

Let's assume that nothing was ever said about what can be done with the CD one purchases.

But this does not in reality reflect what you know NOW about CD's (you cited an Elton John CD limitation). How do you evade this reality in the future when you buy CD's knowing that many, if not all may have such restrictions and that they are in fact quite commonplace?

[KendallJ]

First about lending/copying CDs to another medium:

Check out the tiny lines at the bottom of the following CD: Elton John- Love songs CD, back cover.

It says: "Unauthorized copying reproduction, hiring, lending, public performance and broadcast prohibited."

So even if I buy the music, I am still not allowed to copy it to my PC, mp3 player, lend it to a friend, or play it in a party. So eggs for scrambled eggs only? not that far fetched.

CD's sold in the US do not say that exact verbiage. I did a quick search to see if there was some other legal basis for the phrase. The US WIPO implementation (US law that is for hte implementation of WIPO [uN treaty] copyright).

WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act in the United States says "(a), unless authorized by the owners of copyright in the sound recording or [...] in the musical works embodied therein, neither the owner of a particular phonorecord [...] may, for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage, dispose of, or authorize the disposal of, the possession of that phonorecord [...] by rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending."^[6]

My guess is the "lending" phrase comes from the WIPO treaties, and so you might want to check that to make sure the context you have it in is appropriate. This would seem to imply that the lending phrase might originate under the "purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage".

[Drew1776]

The question is not whether there is a law against letting minors see the movie, which there is not, but whether the owner of the theater has a right to impose whatever restrictions on people entering his place of business.

Alas I stand corrected. David is right there is no law requiring movie theaters to enforce movie ratings...how interesting. Anyway I still don't have a problem with seeing a movie against "the rules."

[Qwertz]

Alas I stand corrected. David is right there is no law requiring movie theaters to enforce movie ratings...how interesting. Anyway I still don't have a problem with seeing a movie against "the rules."

That depends on what you mean by "against the rules." Do you mean you think it's okay to go see the movie at a theatre that doesn't enforce the ratings system, or do you mean that you think it's okay to deceive a theatre that does enforce the system, or do you mean that you think it's okay to sneak into a theatre that enforces without buying a ticket?

-Q

[DavidOdden]

I do not steal.

Good. I was assuming that this was a hypothetical and that you were talking about your roommate of sister or whatever.

I think there is a legitimate claim for lending and copying the music to one's player/PC:

That's plainly false. Well, for us. I don't know about Israeli copyright law, so for the purpose of the discussion, you are now an American. Copying is prohibited, end of story. There is no assumption of "much more freedom" on the part of the sellers, although buyers have long been deluded. That's their problem -- I'd suggest that you simply read up on the copyright issue so that you can understand the moral and legal issues.

I was not aware of this limitation when I bought the CD.

One of the lesser-known contributions of William of Ockham, who invented the razor, is found in Dialogus, 1614 Edition, I Dial., book 4, chapters 11 “Nec potest per ignorantiam excusari, quia ignorantia iuris divini apud omnes promulgati non excusat, sicut nec ignorantia iuris naturalis excusat". Sic semper criminalis. Your obligation is to learn the laws of your society, and obey them.

I have no comment about the "lending" condition on the EJ CD. I've never seen any such thing, and AFAIK it's a legal nullity in the US. Maybe Tom knows -- it's probably a UK thing.

I don't see a reason to follow this rule (theater).

I won't try to persuade you, I'll simply point out that you are behaving immorally by trespassing on the theater's property. It's true that that is not as profound a rights-violation as murder, but who cares? What you need to understand is that it is right for the police to arrest you for trespassing, if you persist in acting in this way. You have no right at all to be in that theater.

What is generalization 2? What makes the road-crossing case different from the theater case?

Generalization 2 is that you are not violating any person's rights by crossing the street.

My suggestion is that you don't understand why violating the rights of another person is bad, if it gives you something that you want. Next time somebody steals something from you, or puts a gun to your head and tells you that you have to spend a year in the army, give some consideration to the nature of rights. Perhaps what you don't get is that you're not the only person with rights.

[DavidOdden]

It says: "Unauthorized copying reproduction, hiring, lending, public performance and broadcast prohibited."

We don't need a UK lawyer for this. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, section 18-A (1) covers this: "The rental or lending of copies of the work to the public is an act restricted by the copyright". You may lend your immoral roommate the CD, but you may not start up your own EJ lending library (then's when you need the special license, similarly with public vs. private playing). The CD isn't asserting any restriction other than the well-known and long-standing protection of copyright that exists in every civilized country, as well as Iran and France.

[softwareNerd]

It says: "Unauthorized copying reproduction, hiring, lending, public performance and broadcast prohibited."

I assume that "unauthorized" means any instances of such acts that would contrary to what is authorized under existing law. You seem to be interpreting it to mean acts for which you have not received explicit, personal permission from the seller. In other words, I suspect that what you are seeing is a reminder, not a new contractual clause.

[~Sophia~]

So even if I buy the music, I am still not allowed to copy it to my PC, mp3 player, lend it to a friend, or play it in a party.

I don't buy CDs anymore. I use iTunes and buy music by song. The rules are that you are allowed to burn a song from your computer to a CD up to seven times. I am not sure about the limit of Ipod transfers but it is probably close to the same number. The combination of Ipod + Ipod speakers allow you to take your fav music anywhere without the need of making additional copies. Love it!

Edited March 6, 2007 by ~Sophia~