The morality of YouTube

[Monarchist]

Friends, how often do you think of YouTube and its position in the moral universe?

When you click the play button to hear this professionally-recorded music or view that industrially-produced video, what are you doing? Are you committing theft? Are you taking part in a legitimate moral exchange between charitable consumer and willing retailer? Please don't imagine that I'm speaking in terms of legality; no, morality is the focus of these questions. There are many potentially good moral actions which are illegal, and a lot of immoral actions which are legal across the world. Just think of the act of murder versus the act of self defense. Both of these involve destroying one human life, but one is evil and the other just. Law means nothing in this case, and morality everything.

Now, what about it? What if A purchases C from B, and puts C on YouTube to be viewed or listened to by the multitude of D? A is the consumer, C is the music, B is the musician/publisher, and D are YouTube viewers. There are only two possible answers, in my opinion: either D is committing the evil of theft by listening to something A has placed on the internet free of charge, or D is committing no evil because A has purchased C legally and can display C publicly, free of charge. In terms of ontological ownership, does the consumer's wealth traded for the publisher's music automatically mean the publisher can do what he wants with the wealth, and the consumer can do whatever he wants with the music? If the music purchased by the consumer becomes his own property, I suppose he can legally put it anywhere, (including the rubbish bin, or on YouTube), just as the publisher can use new-found wealth to create more music or whatever else.

What about D? The transaction so far is only between A and B for the use of C. In the beginning, B owns C because B produced C. When A comes in and offers an equivalent amount of money for C, B gives C up for A's money. That's perfectly moral and fine, if both parties agree. The problem arrives when you consider D, who had nothing to do with this transaction whatsoever, yet D can still listen to this music when A puts the music on YouTube without B's permission. Either D is thieving or not. What is the moral answer?

[Mr. Crow]

youtube is a tool, like a pen, their kind is amoral.

[Monarchist]

Nothing is amoral except breathing and the heartbeat. Every voluntary act in the Universe can be categorised as moral or immoral. Come on!

[MaximiIian]

Every voluntary act in the Universe can be categorised as moral or immoral. Come on!

Not really. Not everything is a question of morality. If it advances one's happiness and does not obfuscate others' attainment of happiness, then it's simply a matter of personal taste.

[Monarchist]

Not really. Not everything is a question of morality. If it advances one's happiness and does not obfuscate others' attainment of happiness, then it's simply a matter of personal taste.

Happiness is indeed the goal of life; however, the ultimate happiness for which all people strive is often debased by lower pleasures. Obtaining "happiness" at every possible level is not morally right. Only obtaining the purest, highest of happiness is morally right. I mean, it might make you very happy to inject heroin into your veins, but it will eventually ruin your life and your happiness. Nominal, immediate happiness has almost nothing to do with long-term, lasting happiness. It would make me happy to watch von Karajan conducting his 1963 recording of Beethoven's 7th symphony on YouTube, but would it make my ultimate goal in life much happier? I don't think it would, because I'd be trading immediate pleasure for the long-lasting happiness of knowing I had not violated morality by stealing the Beethoven video (i.e. not paying the watch it).

I do not believe something that is against the law is necessarily immoral. Laws can be wrong. They only apply when they are enforceable. Very often laws have nothing whatsoever to do with morality. Some laws are clearly immoral.

People who create things that can be downloaded should get with the times and work with the internet to make money. There’s always a way to make money if you have the will. Then their labour will be rewarded and all will be right with the world again.

The fact that they should 'get with the times' has nothing to do with this moral problem, my friend. What the musicians ought to do has nothing to do with what we ought to do with our current circumstances. Our moral problem is with music and videos placed for free on YouTube when someone worked hard for that music or video to be purchased. The only moral way we can watch a full-length movie on YouTube is to purchase it ourselves, with our own earned-money; otherwise, we are literally stealing, aren't we?

[Vizsla]

The fact that they should 'get with the times' has nothing to do with this moral problem, my friend. What the musicians ought to do has nothing to do with what we ought to do with our current circumstances. Our moral problem is with music and videos placed for free on YouTube when someone worked hard for that music or video to be purchased. The only moral way we can watch a full-length movie on YouTube is to purchase it ourselves, with our own earned-money; otherwise, we are literally stealing, aren't we?

Stealing is when you take something that you know belongs to someone else. In this case you don’t know who it belongs to. As far as you can tell it has been made available to you freely by a large corporation and you have every reason to believe that they, and you, are not breaking any laws. This does not constitute stealing.

In any case no one is forcing you to download stuff. So you are free not to ‘steal’ and everyone else is free to view ‘freely distributed content’. So why do you care?

[MaximiIian]

I mean, it might make you very happy to inject heroin into your veins, but it will eventually ruin your life and your happiness.

Which automatically makes it not the achievement of happiness and thus doesn't count. Your comparison is void.

[Mr. Crow]

on the contrary few things are moral. because it is the propose and use of the stuff that has moral connotations.

[Genius of the Restoration]

The problem arrives when you consider D, who had nothing to do with this transaction whatsoever, yet D can still listen to this music when A puts the music on YouTube without B's permission. Either D is thieving or not. What is the moral answer?

Good topic! The morality of the action, IMHO, goes back to the bit you identified earlier, specifically:

In terms of ontological ownership, does the consumer's wealth traded for the publisher's music automatically mean the publisher can do what he wants with the wealth, and the consumer can do whatever he wants with the music?

I think it depends on the agreement initially constructed by the publisher and whoever bought the music initially. If the publisher said it could only be used for personal use, and the buyer put it on YouTube, then yes, it would be immoral as deceiving and breaking trust (which in my own moral scales outweighs the positive moral effect of sharing with other people what you own yourself).

In this situation, the ownership of the music would stay with the publisher. The individual would only be purchasing limited rights to play the music, not actual ownership of the music itself.

It gets more interesting when it comes to person D, and I think it comes down to what they know about the situation that brought the music to them. The intention of person D is crucial as to whether their decision to watch is moral or not. If they knew that the music was there in breach of trust and they watched it anyway, I'd say that is immoral because they are obtaining a benefit from something that was distributed against the agreement, even though they are only third-parties to the agreement themselves. If they didn't know, then their actions can't be immoral IMO, as morality is tied to intention. Without a desire to benefit from the breaking of trust, their actions can't be immoral.

I had another point that I wanted to make, but I've forgotten it. Seems to be one of those days...

[Monarchist]

How Thomistic of you, Genius! Your argument is certainly something to consider, but it does appeal to a sort of legalism. The agreements about specific pieces of music and products still do not apply to universal morality. I suppose there must always be room for a certain amount of casuistry and relativity in this sort of thing, though.

[Phier]

I'm streaming "The Wall" in HD to my TV from youtube right now.

I'm not sure if that makes me a bad person or not.

I, feel, cold as a razor blade, tight as a tourniquet, dry as a funeral drum....

[Claudius Gothicus]

I'm streaming "The Wall" in HD to my TV from youtube right now.

I'm not sure if that makes me a bad person or not.

I, feel, cold as a razor blade, tight as a tourniquet, dry as a funeral drum....

Well... from a technical point of view it does.

But the really important question is... do you even care? Because personally I do not, I'll start caring when the ''big bad goverment'' and the ''big bad corporations'' actually start giving me decent alternatives on one hand and pursue me furiously on the other one.

[Captain Blackadder]

I'm streaming "The Wall" in HD to my TV from youtube right now.

I'm not sure if that makes me a bad person or not.

I, feel, cold as a razor blade, tight as a tourniquet, dry as a funeral drum....

You are destroying the fabric of the entire captalist society what you are doing is communist. Taking something for nothing, expecting other people to give freely to you whilst you leach off their hard work. Why should the artist be forced to lose money so that you can be entertained? You are a no good commie Phier why do you hate capitalism so much?

[Phier]

You are destroying the fabric of the entire captalist society what you are doing is communist. Taking something for nothing, expecting other people to give freely to you whilst you leach off their hard work. Why should the artist be forced to lose money so that you can be entertained? You are a no good commie Phier why do you hate capitalism so much?

Don't be droll its no communism at all, if it were communism I'd still be waiting for my turn in the download queue, estimated start time 2013.

This would be theft, but then is it theft if they are not enforcing their copyrights?

If you try to find some videos on youtube it will be impossible, or only poor quality recordings because the owner of the copyright does not allow content to be there. Being a pink floyd fan I've gone to youtube more than once when in the mood and the videos are all there for at least the last two years.

I really have no idea if they are allowed or just ignored.

[justicar5]

I'm streaming "The Wall" in HD to my TV from youtube right now.

I'm not sure if that makes me a bad person or not.

I, feel, cold as a razor blade, tight as a tourniquet, dry as a funeral drum....

Watching VNV Nations Illsuion here.

I don't want you to hate for all the hurt that you feel
The world is just illusion trying to change you

But seriously Youtube is neither moral or immoral, deliberatly looking for rips of DVDs/Movies is however theft. Oh and on the VNV tracks, I know there allowed, there in VNV Nations own channel, with links to there website.

[Phier]

I think the problem with youtube is that so much is official its rather difficult to always know whats unofficial.

Feelings of an almost human nature...

[Vizsla]

I do not believe something that is against the law is necessarily immoral. Laws can be wrong. They only apply when they are enforceable. Very often laws have nothing whatsoever to do with morality. Some laws are clearly immoral.

People who create things that can be downloaded should get with the times and work with the internet to make money. There’s always a way to make money if you have the will. Then their labour will be rewarded and all will be right with the world again.

[xcorps]

This isn't the same as finding a 10 dollar bill on the sidewalk. It's more like finding someone's wallet full of money. The wallet has their ID in it, so you know who it belongs to. If you take the money and return the wallet, you have stolen the money. If you take the money and toss the wallet, you have stolen the money.

[Mythos]

The question has been rendered irrelevant. Youtube is here and therefore our morality has to find ways to incorporate paradigms like Youtube in a sensible manner.

[Dr. Croccer]

What have I stolen? Music? How can you steal sound?