Well, that is a scenario which isn't really based in reality
In any case there would be no harm and morally you would have to really push the boundaries to come up with a convincing argument that it was wrong. So yes, that does show the silliness of using morals alone. However, I am merely saying that harm is not always the only indicator that should be used because eventually you will always result in tedious evidential burdens that lead to ridiculous and limp legislation.
The example was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but there are actually numerous parallels to be drawn between the production of child pornography and wildlife documentaries. Both may be perceived as the exploitation of a living thing, where the child or animal is vulnerable and incapable or unwilling to consent to their involvement or understand the ramifications of doing so. The production of wildlife documentaries can result in long-lasting psychological harm to animals just as the production of child pornography can to those children involved.
But the point was really intended to make explicit the distinction between those involved in producing child pornography, and those that simply view it,
especially where there is no connection between the two (e.g. money does not change hands, the production is not in any way commissioned, etc.)
There appears to be an unspoken consensus that stealing a CD is worse than downloading a copy of it. Why? Many of those against the criminality of downloading music usually say that the difference is that you are taking a physical thing when you steal the CD, so that as no physical thing is lost it is not as 'harmful'.
That is absolutely correct. Copyright infringement is not theft as there is no deprivation of property.
That is a totally ludicrous argument if you are trying to use the harm principle. The actual harm is the loss of profit, which completely dwarfs the harm caused by the loss of a physical single copy. This is freuquently countered by the (baffling) argument that 'I would not have bought the CD if I did not download it', which seems to rest on the illogical possition that you are entitled to enjoy anything you would not pay for - clearly you are not.
It's not baffling at all. In many cases people state they download music to 'sample' it, in order to determine whether or not they would consider purchasing it.
In many other cases the argument could be made that a person enjoys a piece of music, and would conceivably buy it on those grounds, but
not at the market price.
I might derive £4 worth of enjoyment from the new Foo Fighters album and be willing to pay that much for it, but I can't find it anywhere for less than £9. The act of me committing copyright infringement to obtain that album deprives the copyright holder of the £4 that I might be willing to give them for the album, but that is their own fault for failing to give me that option. I certainly would not pay £9 for it.
Others find disagreement with the more fundamental concept of intellectual property rights, and disagree with the music industry using those rights as a business model, as opposed to alternative sources of revenue.
