Legal & Ethical Questions in the PC Audio Age

Shadorne, if I ever doubted that I liked your opinions and philosophies before, (which I didn't), I will never doubt again. I applaud you for taking the high road and telling it like it is. Not to be prudish or stuffy, but by day my work brings me face to face with the seedier side of life and all manner of criminals and fraudsters - and frequently with people who prey on the elderly.

At night, I teach a law and ethics class and it is VERY disturbing how many of us (the percentages are documented in numerous surveys) not only justify or rationalize ethical breaches but then think we would be judged as one of the most ethical people our friends!

A way to spot such unethical acts many times IMHO is when we do something that seems innocuous and justify it with any of the following:

1. Everybody's doing it.
2. If I don't do it, someone else will.
3. It doesn't really HURT anyone.
4. That's the way it's always been done
5. The system's unfair.
6. We'll stop when the lawyer's tell us we cannot do it.(think Enron, Sunbeam, Worldcom, Tyco, Fannie Mae and the list goes on)

Just as insidious - just simply label your act by a different name! Spinsters are GREAT at this - you know, Napster called copyright infringement "Peer-to-Peer filing sharing" Enron and Fannie Mae called it "Earnings Management" instead of cooking the books.

Even more dangerous is the slipperly slope or the moving line of ethical boundaries.

Check out a real life story about a famed USC professor and former LA County City Planning Commisioner named George Lefcoe - he tells the story of how one of his constituents, a funeral home that was NOT an applicant while he was at the commission, sent him a ham as a Christmas gift one year. He tried to do the ethical thing (to avoid even an appearance of impropriety or bribery) and return the ham - but nobody at the funeral home was apparently authorized to accept it. The next year he got the ham and gave it to a charity - while this LOOKS innocuous - this is where the slippery slope begins. The next year he gave it to friends, the next year he enjoyed it with family and then finally and by the fifth year he admitted he started to wonder around December 10th where his ham was!! I know this type oc act looks benign but this is how he go further and further that slippery slope. Each step, taken in isolation, looks innocent but by the time you get years out - you have ripped off the company for millions!

Many a CEO and CFO have justified cooking the books - not necessarily for the maximization of their own stock options - but claiming they did it to keep the employees from losing their jobs!! Right. And the justifcation begins.

I apologize for this rant - but I believe our society is getting more and more unethical and greedy (and I am a FIRM believer in the free market system) and we seem to find new and innovative ways to justify that behavior.

Two of the ethical philosophers who have proposed "ethical systems" for resolving ethical dilemmas (considering personal values will differ based on many factors such as culture, religion, upbringing, etc.) suggest asking yourself the following when facing a decision about the proper way to act in a given situation:

1. Would I be alright if my behavior became a universal principal? or

2. How would I act if I entered this situation without knowing what side I was on? (think of two attorneys who are told they must give their repsective "opening statements" in a criminal trial without knowing if they are representing the State or the Defendant!) I bet that opening statement would be VERY fairly presented in a neutral, ethical way. (Yes, I am lawyer and know this is preposterous since a lawyer is acting as an "advocate" but you get the point).

OK, I am done, it's just a subject near and dear to my heart. Lest you think otherwise, yes, I have done things I am not proud of or that I would do differently - but as I get older I keep trying to learn and consider the other person's perspective and the consequences of my actions.

Now that my rant is over, do you have any new music to reccommend? (and yes, I will buy it)!!

Frank

In my last post, the story about George Lefcoe is a public story published in various ethics textbooks. In my post that paragraph ended as follows:

"I know this type of act looks benign but this is how we[sic] go further and further down that slippery slope. Each step, taken in isolation, looks innocent but by the time you get years out - you have ripped off the company for millions!"

PLEASE DON'T THINK AT THE END OF MY PARAGRAPH THAT I WAS SAYING OR INSINUATING THAT MR. LEFCOE RIPPED OFF ANY COMPANY. HE NEVER DID SUCH A THING. I WAS USING HIS OWN PUBLISHED, NON-CRIMINAL, PUBLIC STORY TO SHOW THAT IF WE ARE NOT CAREFUL, THIS TYPE OF SLIPPERY SLOPE [WHERE WE CROSS OUR OWN ETHICAL LINES] CAN HAPPEN TO ANY OF US AND POSSIBLY LEAD US TO JUSTIFY LATER CRIMINAL ACTS.

Mr. Lefcoe is a well respected professor and I am glad he is kind enough to have shared his story for all of us to learn from.

Hey John,

Don't even get me started on government ethics (now talk about an oxymoron) or the lack thereof! John, all I can say is that when we lose hope and look at our leaders and and point to their lack of ethics as a reason for us to justify acting unethically (in a self-preservation sort of way), we are all in trouble as, IMHO, chaos and anarchy ensues. This is a sort of moral or ethical relativism where the end justifies the means and we all know what manner of evil has been prepretated using such a theory.

While I am an imperfect person and a realist, at the risk of sounding like I am oversimplfying the answer to your question, I actually DO think that if I just do the next right thing, the rest will take care of itself.

Frank

John,

I am definitely NOT an unadulterated optimist or idealist. However, if I choose to act ethically that doesn't mean I am an idealist. I work as in-house counsel having left private practice because I saw SO much unethical behavior. But if I then use that experience as a justification to act unethically where does it end? I have to live with myself. I will continue to live by ethical standards and hope (but not necessarily expect) that others (certainly not all or even a majority) will respond in a like manner. NO, I am not advocating being a gullible doormat or easy prey for criminals or even people trying to take unfair advantage, just doing the next right thing.

John, I too have witnessed the same disparity you have with many upper level execs. However, if we DO respond with outrage and we DO prosecute high profile execs who act like Dennis Kozlowski, Ken Lay, Bernie Ebbers (and I HOPE we prosecute the likes of Franklin Raines and James Johnson), then we begin to provide the only disincentive and deterrent that such greedy unethical jerks can relate to - the loss of their personal liberty!

Trust me John, I can EASILY get jaded and cynical with all the crime and fraud I see on a daily basis - but responding by becoming what I abhor is not only NOT the answer for me, I couldn't live with myself if I did - and YES, it might make me feel better initially but, since I have a conscience, that initial feeling would eventually be replaced by guilt and regret (and thankfully so since my experience is that the worst criminals have NO conscience).

Your last question is a good one: First, compliance with the LAW should be the MINIMUM standard of behavior - ethics is a higher standard. Stated alternatively, the law prescribes what we MUST do, ethics suggest what we SHOULD do! Thus, MOST of the time, if something is illegal it is necessarily unethical because ethics is a higher standard. However, on certain rarer occasions, JUST because something is LEGAL does not mean that disobeying the law is unethical - think Nazi Germany and apartheid. In these cases, the law allowed horrific behavior so disobeying the law in those cases was actually the ethical thing to do.

John, it does get difficult to continue to live by ethical tenets when you see so many people who do not apparently getting ahead - but I also DO see cases where justice DOES prevail and it does give me a modicum of hope and confirms that doing the next right thing isn't a naive way of life.

Kijanki,

LOL!! Can you send me a kosher ham? '-) On second thought - send it along with a few hundred CD-Rs of your favorite CDs!!!!!

On your second post, it is not the READING of the copyrighted work that is illegal, it is the unauthorized COPYING of the tangible medium. Then there are what are called "fair-use" exceptions to this rule - such as the right to make a copy of a CD if you already own it (assuming you paid for it originally). PLUS, libraries have paid for the license to have the books (and certain limited copying is permitted under the fair-use doctrine).

There are many more rules and a body of case law interpretting copyright laws and infringement. As such, since I am not an intellectual property attorney, I won't try to advise you much beyond what I teach in my Law & Ethics class as I'd be out of my area of exeprtise.

Frank

Tomcy6,

Personally, while I do agree that compassion and concern for your fellow man are worthy and admirable goals, your apparent condescension that us "supremely ethical people" are somehow hypocritical or unethical because we are buying stereo gear when others are starving is both disingenuous and misplaced. The very fact that you have posted on this thread means you own or have access to a computer. Could we "supremely ethical people" not repsond by asking why would you have such a decandent luxury when others are starving? See where this goes?

Let's face it, everything beyond food and water in life is a "want" not a "need." Therefore, since the only necessities in life are food and water, I can always say that purchasing ANYTHING beyond those necessities when others are starving is unethical (since they do NOT even have food and water - why should you have a house or electricity?). Do you have a watch, a car (other than say a beat up old Yugo), a TV, a PC, a refrigerator, a stove? Well, if so, others in Darfur or the Sudan or even America don't have those luxuries so, using your standard, you too are also one of us "supremely ethical people". I see how it appears that giving away a CD is somehow less offensive than not helping others who are less fortunate when we are buying expensive gear, but two things come to mind: (1) the guy who cannot afford even buying a CD can now accuse YOU of being unethical because you are buying CDs when he can't eat; and (2) giving away that CD is STILL not your copyrighted material to give away whereas at least the guy who buys expensive gear is only spending HIS money that he has the right to do. Does this make sense?

Being ethical IMHO does not necessarily mean we assume the absolute responsibility for the welfare of others. That said, I do think that charitable giving and care for others is a good thing and something we should aspire to. But singling out people who buy high-end audio as unethical because their money could be better spent in your opinion is a dangerous path to follow. Who then judges who has too much and who is decadent or wasteful? Yes, I DO see how looking at people who, in our opinion, waste sinful amounts of money when other are starving appears so imcompassionate. However, I don't think "unethical" is necessarily the adjective I'd use to describe them.

Even in a communist society, it is the governement that disributes the wealth and assumes the "responsibility" for the welfare of the masses.

Just my $.02 and, as always subject to opposing views and scrutiny.

Frank