Is one valid in stealing from a grocery store because they are a poor student?



Can one photocopy whole text books without paying for them?



Flagrant violation of copyrights is not validated by one's financial situation.

Nope. I'll tell you why though I can hardly believe you are serious. You can't compare these cases since an occasional apple (usually the student's parents provide him with food) is not nearly as expensive as Jeff's video tapes (at least in Austria).



I don't know your profession nor your financial situation. However, if you're hooked on magic, want to win the FISM competition in 2006, can't afford the material and have one mentor who really supports you (by teaching and by providing learning material) you would definitely not act differently.



By the way... although I'm honored with Magic Christian being the president of my local magic club, he wouldn't teach me (or others) ANYthing. Certainly I wouldn't have had to copy one or the other video or book if he had explained at least something to me.



Daryl Martinez doesn't need the money of the few poor students who copy his tapes. He needs the money of the lawyers who - as I will - do pay.

Just curious - did you ask Daryl Martinez if he minds you making bootleg copies of his videos? It occurs to me that it isn't a question of whether he NEEDS your money or not, or whether you can afford to purchase the things you want.







I'd like to try that as a defense in court - "I had to take this video, Your Honor, I don't make enough money to pay for it." Do you think I'd be found not guilty of theft?



Mary B.

You've completely missed the point, Mary. We are not discussing legal issues here. Read above: I'm a law student and currently working on a diploma thesis on intellectual property right opposing (!) napster and the like. Thus, I totally agree with you in saying that my posting wouldn't work as defense before a trial jury but we're talking ethics here, not law.

If I accept your logic (I most certainly don't), you would only be entitled to steal an occasional TT idea, or Invis. Deck handling; not entire videos. What you have stolen is a gourmet dinner, not an apple.



Take your situation to an ethics professor or copyright professor and see if they agree with you.



I certainly hope when you are a rich lawyer you will welcome poor students who use your services but just can't afford to pay you when the bill comes.



_________________

Tom Cutts

Publisher, AM/PM

About Magic...Performing Magic

Wow!! I know that I am jumping into this conversation late, but when I read through Christof's "ethical" defense of stealing I must admit to being amazed. Most thieves do their deeds in secret, and live with the knowledge that what they do is wrong . . .but to boldly declare it to the world and then actually think it is OK??



It's stealing. This is not even a grey issue. The information on the tapes was not purchased. It was taken without the owners permission, and that is ethically indefensible.



Contrary to what some may say, the end never justifies the means.



If I may broach the subject, what we are dealing with here is not ethics, but a more foundational issue -- morals. Right and wrong, absolute standards, that sort of thing.



It isn't my intention to be divisive or personal. Rather, I am attempting to view this subject from another angle. Morality, ethics, law -- in a perfect world these would reflect each other. They are not separate entities but are instead part of a cohesive whole.



Separating these is where I believe this ethics problems is originating.



Scott

Actually, Christof, I didn't miss the point, I simply couldn't believe that you really think it's ok to steal just because you can't afford to pay for the luxuries you want.



Stealing is illegal, that's a fact, and of course the "defense" I mentioned (tongue in cheek) wouldn't hold water. I find your reasoning faulty at its core. If it's ok to copy tapes without purchasing them now, why wouldn't it be ok to do the same later?



Neither your financial situation nor the relative value of the item being stolen nor the financial situation of the person being stolen from has any bearing on the ethical question: "Is it wrong to steal?" This is why some parents teach their children that it's just as wrong to steal a penny as it is to steal a dollar.



If stealing is wrong, it's wrong, regardless of the circumstances. This is, ultimately, a moral judgement that every person must make for themselves.



Mary B.

I'll admit, this goes far outside the scope of my arguments. Viewing a friend’s video, learning from a friend who has the video etc., is a far cry from blatant copying and I can't approve of that, though I would like to know more facts. For instance: I know a pair of magicians who were quite poor and would buy videos and split them. One kept a copy and the other kept the original. Copies were never sold or given out and that could at least be considered grey, but THIS does sound like outright stealing.

I didn't think this would happen so soon, but I'm all with Tom on this.



Sable

[quote]
On 2002-01-09 10:25, Christof wrote:

Presently I own 39 original and 25 copied magical video tapes.



Christof



Wow!! I obviously don't know what videos these are. If you have "mastered" all of the material on half of these tapes you should be able use this information to earn the money to purchase any other videos you might want.



I have thought a lot about your not having the money as validation of your theft. I have one thought off the top of my head. IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD IT, THEN YOU CAN'T HAVE IT. Exercise some self control.

Again the topic of ethics has popped up here and again there are those tromping through this highly complex division of philosophy with an apparent moral omniscience.



Let me first remind you all that ethics, as the term has been used here, is a system of beliefs. This is evident enough in the vastly differing opinions here. And because we are discussing a belief system (and not a legal system), we may question someone else’s ethics but we may not declare them, by our own accord, morally corrupt (as this reeks of Ethical Amoralism). Judge not, lest ye be judged.



And since this has gone so far off the original (and I believe intended) topic let me take it one step further in defense of the condemned. What you may all find most surprising is that in applying some of the most prevalent theories of ethics (“ethics” as in the moral value of human behavior and not "ethics” the soapbox of religious beliefs) Christof’s behavior is most ethical.



Applying Ethical Egoism his basis for moral choices is whatever fits his rational self -interests.



Teleological Ethics would argue that his decision was moral as it was of little consequence to anyone.



Ethical Intuitionism tells us that he was morally correct as his conscious mind tells him so.



Moral Relativism states that whatever he believes to be moral is moral for him.



There are just as many theories that would tell us his actions were unethical. Which brings me to the point. If you must wile away your hours contemplating moralities here and there (all the while debating my morality and not your own), try focusing on something a little broader as ethics would be better served on humanity than magic tapes.

In spite of myself, I am forced to agree with yakandjak. I think to some extent we are all just exhibiting our OWN choices of ethics, but of course our choices will always come off as a judgment of others. Sometime it truly is, and sometimes not. I think the important thing though is that yakandjak has reminded us all that ethics like everything else is indeed relative and we must keep that in mind.



On the other hand, given that everything is relative we can hardly sit around stating it with every post. Ethical discussions will always have to assume certain constants or it would render discussion impossible. By general theories of ethics ANYTHING can be ethical, rendering theorizing pointless. Relativisation tends to render any kind of study pointless if taken to its absolutes and therefore (at least for discussion purposes) we must abide by certain variables and constants in order to engage in said discussions. Perhaps the pearl of yakandjak's wisdom here however is that we should stick to discussion tone and not make blatant, judgmental statements about others behaviour. yakandjak, I do commend you on your comments here.



I must commend christof here, as well, on at least being entirely upfront and honest about his doings.



BTW Teleologically speaking, his case is not entirely ethical, as there certainly could be consequences to others, though perhaps not direct consequences. Not monetarily supporting magicians could ultimately hurt magic and then in turn hurt magicians. The issue of most of my arguments has been that certain negative attitudes decrease sales and not increase them in the long run. Perhaps you could say that our ethics have been monetarily based and that may very possibly be our constant.





Sable

Ethics and morals are relative, huh? Sorry, I don't buy that--not for a second. That's simply an excuse for justifying doing what we know to be wrong.



The problem here, my friends, is that this becomes a VERY slippery slope. If ethics and morals are relative, where do we, or anyone else, or society, draw the line?



If my wife is mean, and has a big life insurance policy and I can arrange to have her "offed," that is the right thing for me, right? I mean, I'm relieving myself of her constant nagging and whining, and I really need the money to get out of debt, and her family have all passed on, and we have no kids, so...



Or, I can go blow up an abortion clinic, because I know it's the right thing to do...



Or I can have sex with a minor, because it makes both of us feel good.



And before you rail against me that it's not the same thing...



My best friend is a pre-sentence invetigator for the Department of Corrections, Probation and Parole Department. And he deals with people who do exactly this same thing, every day, and they give exactly these responses. And guess what? They didn't start out by killing, bombing and raping. They started by shoplifting and vandalism and other "minor" infractions of the law, because it was what they wanted to do and it was what made them feel good!



"But, Scott! Those things are illegal!" SO IS COPYING TAPES, BOOKS, ETC! If you don't think it's a big deal, invite the FBI into your home and show them the bootlegs. Guess what? YOU WILL BE PROSECUTED! And rightfully so!



Gray area? Relative? Bull! Right is right, and wrong is wrong. Always has been and always will be. Everything else is excuses and justification.



Whether it's taking a candy bar from a store, a dollar from your dad's wallet or copying a tape, it's wrong and you know it. There's a notice at the beginning that TELLS you it's against the law! The problem is that we are selfish and we want everything and we want it now.



Can't afford it? Get a job! Got a job? Save some money up and buy it? Don't wanna wait that long? Tough! How many of us actually perform even 10% of the stuff in our libraries, whatever their size? Dang few. We don't NEED the tapes, we WANT them. And, just like your mom told you when you were a kid, you can't have everything you want!



'Nuff said.

Amen, brother... preach on.



And may I just add,



"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."

Matthew 7:5



Regards,

Thomas Wayne

greatscott,

Ok, back up a minute. I don't think yakandjak is defending stealing and I know I'm not. He's talking about academic ethics and yes, ethics are very relative under those terms. Everything is relative from some point of view. Of course we have ethics that we live by in a society and yes we try to stick to them. Academics are another subject and I think yakandjak was merely using it as a way of showing that we needed to be careful in judging others and there I do agree with him. We all draw that line between grey and black, but everyone draws it in a different place and it does make judging a tender thing. I consider MY ethics extremely high, but I'm sure Tom would disagree and perhaps someone even more extreme might consider him too lax. I think most of us would disagree with chrisof's actions, but we must be careful in how we force our ethics on him. Talking and discussing ethics is different from hammering other people with them. I'll be the first to say that I'm very guilty, but I am trying to curb my own hypocrisy.



Sable

Quite honestly, let's forget academic ethics. When one declares that he copied tapes, it is not academic. It really happened. So, in real life, is it wrong? You bet it is.



We can argue ethics all day long, but when the sun sets we're all going to realize that there is an absolute standard. Deep in your heart, you know that some things are wrong. Not just wrong for me on this day, but wrong for all humanity for all time.



The problems arise because we are trying to each determine our own standard. Once we do that, black and white disappear all together and everything becomes gray. At least it seems that way. But it really is not. The line between right and wrong, good and evil is very defined. This is an "Either/Or" world not a "Both/And".



Stealing is either right or wrong. It is not both right and wrong depending on the circumstances.

This topic has really gone in a serious direction. I understand the foundations of ALMOST everyone's viewpoints here. I don't necessarily agree all the way around, but some good points have been made.

That said, it is important to realize that as a forum, and a discussion group, we have to make room for gray area comments, and viewpoints. Not everything is black and white, to everyone.

My view on this subject, is pretty concrete (to me). We can debate the ethics and morals behind someones actions, until we are blue in the face. The problem here, is that this is a legal issue. There is no gray area. Copying tapes to avoid having to compensate a manufacturer, is illegal. What you have, are bootleg copies, even if they are only for private use. You could stand before a judge, with your moral justifications, and stand on your ethical soapbox, but he will only end up with a decision of "Guilty as charged", my friends.



Also, media is no different from other types of merchandise. I can't walk into a bookstore and start copying books, and I'm sure I won't be able to take your blank tapes and VCR into your local video store, and expect to bring home free movies. For the same reasons, it is illegal to do it at home. Wrong or not; ethical or not, it is against the law, and we are commanded by our lawmakers, and by G-D himself, to follow the laws of the land.

What you do, is your business. I'm sure we all drive too fast on our highways. I know I do. I justify it to myself, all the time. It will never change the fact that it is illegal, and it will never diminish the reason for that being so.

I don't think it is right to pass judgement on another person, as G-D forbids that, but actions are another story. You or I, may be wonderful people, but sin is sin, and law is law.

I will now stand down from my pulpit, and go put some more cash in my video fund.

Look, the issue is that christof's justification, he admits, applies only to his videos. Not to all intellectual property. Not to all property. Not to items necessary for the sustainence of life. Just to these magic tapes that he has to have to win a magic competition.



I can applaud those that live by their ethics (legal or unlawful) and their consequences. I may not agree with them but if they truly "walk the talk", then we have a basis from which to build.



Those who dance around the word out of convenience are not going to garner that respect. I see no more thought nor justification of his point of view than - I want it so I'm going to take it, though I truly know I should pay for it.



Admitting to the right of capitalism and the right to artistic intellectual property and then ignoring that because it is inconvenient for you just doesn't sound like an ethic to me.







Thomas,



There seems to be no way to "use" this passage without being, yourself, hypocritical. Perhaps that was His point.



_________________

Tom Cutts

Publisher, AM/PM

About Magic...Performing Magic

I know I went off the beaten path with my prior post. I purposely overshot my mark to illustrate my point. Sable was correct when stating that I was not defending stealing nor was I condoning Christof’s actions. I did judge him in my heart, and very harshly so. But I did not compound my error by stating it publicly (an example of my ethhical beliefs).



My intention, in part, was to show that even in ethics the philosophy there are gray areas and undefined lines. The same is true for the non-academic ethics that we are discussing here. The same is true for laws, which may be interpreted as morals imposed by society.



When you and I discuss ethics we are talking about OUR ethics, OUR belief systems, OUR…opinions. Certainly there will be many instances in which we agree. There are other areas in which our opinions will differ on what is right and wrong. This creates the gray area. The line is no longer clearly defined but blurred. Now for you and I to continue our discussion we can either agreeably disagree or you can vehemently insist that you are correct and I am a heathen. You can understand me or you can judge me. I would hope that in the discussion here you would realize that you don’t know me well enough to even contemplate judging me. But let me illustrate my point with a few real world examples.



I have a friend that killed someone. Was he wrong in doing so? You probably think that killing someone is wrong and I would further assume that you believe it is wrong without exception. Clearly defined moral line. But now if I were to tell you he was in the United States military and killed someone in defense of your freedom in the Gulf War. Was he still wrong? Has your line been blurred because you now have more information; because you are not judging so quickly? Did he break the law? Our countries law, no. The laws of the government of Iraq, probably. So now our concept of right and wrong is blurred even further by our geographic location.



Here’s one of my favorite moral dilemmas (and this really happened). Please attempt, as best you can, to apply this example to your own life. You and your wife of 5 years are researching your families genealogies for posterities sake. Through the course of your research you come to discover that you are related, you to your wife. She is your SISTER. Fate is indeed a cruel (and apparently incestual) mistress. So now what do you do? I think we would all agree that marrying a sibling is wrong. Having “relations” with your sister is wrong. But this is your wife. She only became your sister moments ago. Did an ethical line just become blurred for you? Will you divorce this woman, the love of your life, because society says it’s amoral and illegal? Before your answer go look into your wife’s eyes and apply this example to you.



In both philosophy and in life there are no absolutes, no perfectly clear definition of right and wrong, no unmistakable line between good and bad. Just your opinion, and the opinions of others. We elect some of these others to represent us, as we feel they share our ethical beliefs. When a bunch of them, in turn, share the same ethical opinion they will pass a law. It may not be right, but it is the shared opinion of the majority of our elected leaders. So you can chose to accept these laws or leave California.



I am a United States citizen. I am a citizen of the state of Texas in the city of Flower Mound. I am a non-denominational-pseudo-christian raised Catholic in the mid-west. These are but a few of the laws, morals, opinions, that have shaped my beliefs of right and wrong. I’m not asking you to accept my beliefs as absolute, just please respect them and I, in turn, will respect yours.



And to conclude directly to the point: I received a Jay Sankey video from my sister…er… wife for Christmas. I watched it once and then made a copy. Am I immoral? Am I doing something illegal? Did you judge me yet or did you ask why I made a copy? I made a copy because a couple of years ago I was viewing a Jeff McBride video, The Art of Card Manipulation Volume two. It was only the second or third time I had watched it and in the course of my rewind-stop- play- slow-mo- rewind- play-pause-“what the heck…?”-play-slow-pausing the tape snapped. Now I have performed this same VCR ballet with both of Jeff’s other tapes and they didn’t break so I must conclude that there was something wrong with this tape. I contacted the retailer to get another tape and do you know what he told me after he denied to send me another tape or refund my money? “Next time make a copy and watch that.”



Allllrighty then.



So am I unethical? Did I break the law? At the beginning of the video it stated that there would be severe penalties for the unauthorized reproduction of this tape. Am I authorized to make a copy for this purpose or am I expected to go shell out another thirty bucks if the maufacturer sent me a defective tape? What if the manufacturer continues to send me a shoddy product either unintentionally or by design? Did Jeff really want me to purchase 13 seperate copies of his video because I rewind them so much? Am I expected to pay $360 for the secrets contained within Card Manipulations Volume 2 and the continued access to this information?



You know what? Never mind. I think I can decide for myself.

Yakandjak,

In the broad sense, you are 100% right. In this instance, however, Kristof (bless his heart, and no hard feelings) did give us enough info, to properly assess his situation. That seemed to be his intention. He copied the tape that someone else owned, so that he didn't have to come up with the cash. Plain and simple.

As far as your McBride copy is concerned, you also provided enough info, so that we can properly assess your situation. I'm happy to say that it is completely different. You just made a backup for yourself. You paid for your video, and we assume that you're not making copies for distribution, or to save yourself from compensating someone for their hard work and creativity. Those are two absolutely different scenarios, and I have the info needed to state that.

Well, my view of Christof's argument can be stated in one hypothetical question: I need to get to classes and work every day, and so I need a car. I'm a poor student, though, so I can't afford to buy a car. Once I'm done with school and working, I'll be able to afford one many times over. Is it right for me to go out and steal a car to use while I'm in school and can't afford it? I mean, I will go ahead and pay for any car I use once I'm working and can afford it, I just can't afford it right now.



I'm sure anybody would agree that the clear answer to this question is NO. It's the same defense that you offer for your copying tapes, though. Why do you think it is okay in your situation?



I can't honestly believe somebody studying to be a lawyer would even think of posting something as like this, especially since in focusing on the ethical debate you ignore the fact that COPYING TAPES IS ILLEGAL. It's a violation of international copyright law. I know lawyers have a bad rep for being unethical, but this tops it all--if you're going to have such poor (in my opinion) ethics, at least know the law that you're studying to uphold!!!!