Downloadingof music and materials that are copyrighted from the internet,without paying is unethical. This is considered to be equal to theft,since acquisition of the material, is without the owner’s consent.Additionally, it is attributed to be “infringingones space”,considering the fact that the material is well put in the internetfor economic purpose, of whoever placed the material there accordingto the YouTube material.

Basedon copyrighted materials downloading views, tend to support theunethical notion. Having the pragmatic moral codes, such as, “Thoushall not lift a term paper off the internet” and “Thou shall notuse fake ID” (Gardner 2008 p.171), means the unethical view overdownloading. This considers the fact that use of fake ID to accessmaterials as being illegal, with the lifting of term papers from theinternet being regarded as plagiarism, which is equally illegal.

Asa counterargument to the unethical views, downloading of copyrightedmaterial has been equated to drinking, amongst underage, henceconsidered to be illegal but not immoral. This has made youths to bethe greatest down-loaders’ of copyrighted materials, as supportedby the sentiments that, “everyone” does it? In (Gardner 2008 p.172)

Irebut these sentiments, considering the reality that those whocopyright their materials desire to capacitate society, however at afee to sustain their work. Therefore, accessing their work throughfake ID and uplifting their materials is not generally acceptable.However, view drawn with statistical inferences, on type ofconsumption whether downloading and selling of pirated music shouldnot be allowed, or for personal use should be considered innocent andhence not prohibited, draws a high statistical percentage preferenceas opposed to those who disagree and those not sure.

Itis however important for the audience to remember that, irrespectiveof the lack cases through court process where downloads of copyrightmaterial by people have been done for personal use, lacks legalevidence it is unethical however not illegal. This is with the reasonthat, it has evidence, which not seen hence, people who pursue thatwon’t be easily convicted. It should also be understood that,copyright violation takes place in most countries, hence consideredto be a civil offense but not a criminal offence. If that relates,then the holder of a copyright has the basis to sue. However, thelegal situation gets to depend on the nation under subject.

Themajor holders of copyright alongside their agents spend a lot oftheir effort on trailing people who offer downloading materialincluding those who don`t realize that conditions of the term andparts are for some gush sites, with examples getting to include aprovision for the downloader`s computer usage as a storage device andforwarding lump without the awareness of the downloader. Thissubjects them as being cyber criminals and hackers.

Insome states, downloading of copyrighted materials for personal use islegalized. In a state like Canada, this could be evident according todottech. Therefore, this means if the material owner tries to sue youit is unlikely for you have a defense that is legal. Additionally, itshould be understood that in the entire UK and USA these doesn’tapply. In those states, the copyright hold faces the challenge on theshowing of damages, a situation that is totally different, if thecopyright holder looks for the moral justification over one havingstolen someone’s available work meant for commercial purposewithout paying for it. Therefore, the lack of court aided cases isn`tit, as they could sue subject, they however, still immoral.


Gardner,Peter S. New Directions: Reading, Writing, and Critical Thinking.New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Print. 25th November, 2014.