Karaoke Forums

Several of the threads lately have caused some additional discussion of concepts such as "virtue", "honesty", "morality", even "biblical" in the posting of passages to validate points of view. However, the very basic Constitutional concept of "separation of church and state" might just limit its validity.

Companies make decisions every day, not based on concepts such as "right and wrong" or "biblical correctness", but on, what amounts to, what they can get away with that will create the most profit. I maintain that consumers should be allowed to do the same. Companies have small to large contingencies of advisors that assist them in accomplishing their goals, whether it be according to the letter of the law, their interpretation of the spirit of the law, or their interpretation of the absence of law. Again, consumers should be allowed to do the same.

Changes are very seldom made to laws with an emphasis on the morality of said changes; if they are, it is a by-product of the basis on which it should be changed, that being, its unconstitutionality. Obviously, changes to the constitution have been made over the centuries, and more may be in the offering, with so many advances in technology making some concepts obsolete. However, I do not see the core concept of "separation of church and state" being overturned; the removal of prayer in schools and the like only emphasizes the long-term resolve of this precept. I just find the mention of virtue and religion in these discussions, from a manufacturer OR consumer standpoint, to be a bit disconcerting, especially, ironically enough, given the base activity that occurs in the venues where the vast majority of the activity in question occurs...

Here's the thing, though: theft is not simply a moral or religious concept. There are laws specifically prohibiting it. It's why people who pirate tons of movies or music sometimes find themselves facing either lawsuits or, depending on the internet service provider, a reduction or cancellation of service.

_________________
Co-host of The Greatest Song Ever Sung (Poorly), a karaoke-themed podcast

The big movie companies go after the guy who is making the copies and selling them on every street corner and to every little mom and pop store. They don't go after the last guy in the chain who buys the illegally produced product and bring sit home to watch.

Sound Choice seems to do things in reverse. They seem to feel that the last person in the chain is a much easier target to try an intimidate into a settlement. The sellers have made so much money selling the pre-loaded hard drives that they can afford to pay a GOOD attorney to fight their legal battle and, so far, they seem to be winning....to the chagrin of Sound Choice and their lawyer. Their case has no real teeth and when they are faced with an adversary with some understanding of Trade Mark Infringement laws, they get their butts handed to them. The judges don't seem to have any good feelings for Sound Choice either.

This was more of an effort to show that both sides of this issue probably have as much legal standing as the other, depending on the interpretation of the current laws. It is standard operating procedure for many companies to attempt to skirt the legalities as much as possible, and to not expect the consumer to do the same is a bit naive...

What do you think a movie company would do if someone stole their movie and showed it in a theater or bought the movie, copied it, and showed it in a theater without getting their cut?

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I really do not want to get preachy about the whole analogy thing, but I do wish folks can see the limited, if any, benefit of even coming up with them, especially for the circumstances in this forum. It is not hard to see that there is much uncharted territory here, and relating it to mostly unrelated areas seems like a waste of time...

I'm of the belief that parables in religious literature were created to support that culture's definitions of "right" and "wrong".

If that's the case, and the laws created by governments are also designed to uphold and enforce these definitions, it's almost impossible to separate the two in practice.


That aside, I prefer to use the word ethics because each person actually develops their own unique ethos, or rules to live by- not a religious issue.

Like it or not each individual actual judges others' actions by their own ethos. However, the laws of the land and general feeling is based on general consensus, or cultural ethos. If enough of a majority in any particular culture feels something is "wrong", then it is- at least in that culture.

We think of eating our own dead as not only taboo, but sickening.

A cannibal ( if any such cultures still exist) would think of not eating it as the waste of a good meal.

Personal AND cultural ethos.

All of that being said, I see no reason why ethics should not be discussed in regard to business, applying the general consensus of right and wrong to the actions of a business.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."