In Massachusetts, there is an old ordinance declaring goatees illegal unless you first pay a special license fee for the privilege of wearing one in public.  In New York, one can supposedly be fined $25 for flirting.  Society deemed it inappropriate for men on a street corner to whistle and “flirt” with passersby; so they created a law.  The implication is that laws and policy are not always “right.”  In fact, it may be ok to flirt in New York or grow a goatee in Massachusetts despite what the law says.  Lawlessness may in fact reap good results – i.e. further defining societal norms and beliefs in a new context.   

I still struggle with the moral dilemma that was Napster.  Thousands of people broke the law for personal gain at the expense of others (i.e. content providers).  However, the music industry has  reevaluated what is permissible provided that digital distribution is both possible and sought after.  As a result, consumers are better off now without breaking the law.  I never supported music swapping (from a user perspective), but I can’t say I’m not happy with the outcome.   

The problem for technologists is that they are the ones enabling lawlessness.  So when is it acceptable for technologists to wash their hands of users’ “sins”?  When technologists have visions of a future where consumers are better off (legally), how obligated are they to receive permission from content owners first?  When do we say that diplomacy has failed and take action?  If Napster had been committed to diplomacy (i.e. cooperation with the industry), would society be better or worse for it?  More importantly, does the end justify the means?

Personally, I believe it depends.  If a business model derives value only via illegal behavior, the chance of progress and a positive outcome just isn’t compelling enough.  Otherwise, I’ll go with Machiavelli and say the end justifies the means.