Peter Singer suggests based on the article that it may be morally right to pirate under certain circumstances. Evidence:
One such circumstance is that people can no longer purchase out certain print works, as presented within the article "One marvel of the Internet is that some of my older works, long out of print, are now far more widely available than they ever were before – in pirated versions". This shows that it could be beneficial to have works online for others to use when they are no longer available in print. Another circumstance is presented when Singer claims that by reading the pirated copy of a book sent from his colleague, no one was worse off due to the fact that it was not for sale in digital form. Therefore, he would have ended up borrowing it from the library, not buying it and the publisher does not really lose royalties. He goes on to say that "others benefited from my choice as well: the book remained on the library shelf, available to other users." Statements:
Singer goes on to discuss legislation by the U.S that is aimed at stopping Internet privacy. The bills include a statement by Hollywood studios, publishing, and recording industries, which claimed, “violations of copyright on the Internet cost the U.S. 100,000 jobs.” Also, Singer states that piracy could be stopped if some kind of enforcement is placed because many authors are not getting compensated for their work like in other countries. "Australia, Canada, Israel, New Zealand, and many European countries now have a public lending right, designed to compensate authors and publishers for the loss of sales caused by the presence of their books in public libraries" Premises:
-Stealing is wrong. Singer argues that taking someone’s work from them it’s morally wrong. He states that "If I steal someone’s book the old-fashioned way, I have the book, and the original owner no longer does. I am better off, but she is worse off" -Using pirated books is like stealing....