Is file sharing a sin?

[Aragorn1]

So if 1 and only 1 person buys a movie or cd and then post it on a p2p network, for everyone to download it is ok The difference with watching it at a friends house is that you do not have it in your hands. It is still their copy. once you download it to your PC, you have your own illegal and immoral copy. There are now two copies. One is legal (The person that bought it) and one is illegal, the one on your PC.

If you are watching a streamed copy over the internet, then while I would still believe it to by immoral, I could understand the point of view where it wouldn’t be. This is because you don’t have a copy. That would be the equivalent of watching it a friends house. Downloading a copy that you can watch over and over again would be the equivalent of walking into Best Buy and sticking the movie under your coat and walking out, but much easier and less risky.

That’s not what my friend does. He only watches the movie once, then deletes it, which is essentially the same as watching a streamed copy (you only get one viewing). The fact is, watching a movie at a friend’s house (or borrowing it) does exactly the same damage to the owner as downloading over the internet: basically the person gets to enjoy the movie/music without paying for it, thus depriving the owner of his “just deserts”.

Like it or not, downloading in this way is no more dishonest than simple sharing/borrowing among friends. It becomes dishonest when the downloader burns the media to disks for his collection, thus keeping something that he was only supposed to have in his possession for a short time. It is also immoral to distribute hundreds of copies for a profit. That is why the film/music industries are going to great lengths to prohibit piracy: because they’re losing tons of money through pirated DVDs that a few dishonest people are selling. Individual file sharing, however, does them no more damage than sharing a DVD.

 

[Setlew]

A couple of other things to keep in mind - first, although we are supposed to obey civil laws when they are set up for just and moral reasons, we do not necessarily have to obey them when they are not set up in this fashion. I heard recently where a major recording-industry organization was lobbying the UK government to extend the period in which they “own” the rights to music/movies (before they go into the public domain) from 50 to 90 years, because the Beatles’ first album comes into the public domain in 2012 and they don’t want to lose that fat cash cow. I would argue that laws set up for no other reason then to perpetually benefit an organization not directly responsible for the activites producing the profits are ethically and morally wrong in themselves.

Secondly, organizations like the RIAA typically take $13-14 off of every album sold, leaving only $1-2 to the artist; and the manner in which they determine the portion of profits that is allocated to the artist has been deemed grossly unfair by many people within and without the industry, including several major recording artists (see Steve Vai’s letter of protest here: vai.com/AllAboutSteve/postcard_040220.html.) A better system would be a direct (through the Internet) system where the artist sells his recordings directly to the public in digital format at whatever price he or she chose. Several small/independent organizations, companies and artists are already doing this; but more major artists will have to break away from the media conglomerate before these activities will have any great effect on the status quo.

 

[Spirithound]

The fact is, watching a movie at a friend’s house (or borrowing it) does exactly the same damage to the owner as downloading over the internet: basically the person gets to enjoy the movie/music without paying for it, thus depriving the owner of his “just deserts”.

Like it or not, downloading in this way is no more dishonest than simple sharing/borrowing among friends. It becomes dishonest when the downloader burns the media to disks for his collection, thus keeping something that he was only supposed to have in his possession for a short time. It is also immoral to distribute hundreds of copies for a profit. That is why the film/music industries are going to great lengths to prohibit piracy: because they’re losing tons of money through pirated DVDs that a few dishonest people are selling. Individual file sharing, however, does them no more damage than sharing a DVD.

Is there anything intrinsically immoral about watching a movie at a friend’s house, or with sharing files with a total stranger, or borrowing books from the library and photocopying the whole thing? No there isn’t. This is because nobody is getting physically or spiritually hurt. I think where it starts to be extrinsically immoral comes down to tradition (with a small t). Libraries are accepted by authors, as are second-hand bookstores, musicians are accepting of people listening to music at other people’s houses, etc…

 

[JoshR]

Priest told me if its copyrighted then its stealing so yes it is a sin

 

[terminated007]

Record companies and other such middlemen are overdoing it. They blame piracy using wishy-washy rhetorics about the artists suffering, but in fact, they also campaign to lower the royalties. They basically want profit at the expense of the artists and the customers.

If they could, they would deny the right to back-up copy. If they could, they would even remove the ability to buy a CD once and instead introduce a periodic payment. If they had a way to ban the ability to listen to music at a friend’s, they would do it. They’ve already criticised it. They seem to believe each and every family member should buy the song to listen to it. If they could, they would remove the ability to lend a CD to your friend even if you keep no copy for yourself for the time of lending it (and obviously take no money for it). They have had problems with copyrighted songs audible in people’s family recordings, such as when people record birthday celebrations. Reading about one such situation, I actually learnt that Happy Birthday is copyrighted. In fact, they would probably ban you from tuning a song if you didn’t own a CD or if someone could hear you.

I always prefer to give them the benefit of doubt - not as in believing in their good faith, but as in staying away from what they don’t want to give if it’s possibly legal for them. But I don’t have much respect for the laws they lobby in. Those are a parody of law. One should distinguish between laws based in morality, ethics, social values, and laws based on corporate interests and corporate money and corporate pressure. It’s not the same.

Well said!

 

[terminated007]

If I buy a CD, do I get any guarantee that I am going to get the satisfaction I desire?

If I don’t get the satisfaction, could I return it and get back my money? Because for other products, if one is not satisfied with it, he could return it and get his money back.

Why should anyone tell another person what to do with something he has paid for?

Maybe one day Mr. Toyoda will say that all those having Toyota cars should drive them alone and shouldn’t carry other people or share the cars with others.

 

[Cristiano]

…Why should anyone tell another person what to do with something he has paid for?..

So if a buy a gun nobody should tell me not to kill you?

When you purchase a CD you do not purchase the right to make copies.

 

[terminated007]

So if a buy a gun nobody should tell me not to kill you?

Thats something else. We know that killing is a sin but we don’t know that file sharing is a sin. I don’t see it like a sin.

When you purchase a CD you do not purchase the right to make copies.

This is exactly where we disagree. We file sharers believe that when you buy something like a CD, you become the owner and can decide on what to do with it.

 

[Cristiano]

Thats something else. We know that killing is a sin but we don’t know that file sharing is a sin. I don’t see it like a sin…

This is pure moral relativism. The Catholic Church says that it is a sin to break secular laws. So it is a sin to infringe in copyright law. I do not consider it stealing but I consider it sinful.

…This is exactly where we disagree. We file sharers believe that when you buy something like a CD, you become the owner and can decide on what to do with it.

No! There are limits with what you can do with it. If I were to follow your logic I could print money and distribute it in the crowds. That is against the law even if you own the paper and the ink.

 

[terminated007]

… The Catholic Church says that it is a sin to break secular laws. So it is a sin to infringe in copyright law. I do not consider it stealing but I consider it sinful.

Such a statement is very misleading. The Catholic Church does not say anything like that. Aren’t we the ones fighting against secular laws like legalising homosexuality, abortion etc?

No! There are limits with what you can do with it.

These limits are exactly what we don’t want. It should be illegal to put limits on what people can do with things like CDs they buy. It violates human rights to a certain extend.

The whole idea of copyright/patent is really being used nowadays for selfish interests. Some people just want to make money at all costs.

I read a soldier is trying to sue the director of the movie Hurt Locker claiming the story is his.
I also read of a another person claiming that J.K. Rowlings stole some of her characters from another movie.

I personally don’t think that file sharing is a sin. Moreover, I can do without all the things I obtain via file sharing. Meaning, some of us are useless in the eyes of some manufacturers.

 

[exoflare]

Such a statement is very misleading. The Catholic Church does not say anything like that. Aren’t we the ones fighting against secular laws like legalising homosexuality, abortion etc?

I see your point, but more specifically what the Church teaches is that we are to follow secular laws unless they directly contradict God’s law somehow. So mock marriages, abortion, etc, don’t really apply to this argument.

BTW I agree it’s a stupid law as well, but it is the law.

 

[Califman831]

its stealing music period.

 

[terminated007]

Someone asked in his post why some governments would pass laws that they can’t police? Countries that do such things are generally lawless countries (like my home country ). So why would big governments pass laws they can’t police? (Because there are people with hidden agendas lobbying for such laws)

If file sharing was really a crime, then countries like the US would have to start with Google.

 

[terminated007]

its stealing music period.

It’s not stealing. Full Stop!

 

[exoflare]

Someone asked in his post why some governments would pass laws that they can’t police?

They do “police” it, but only very selectively.

 

[edwest2]

I don’t do it myself, of course, as I prefer to pay for what I obtain. But technically there’s nothing legally or morally wrong with file sharing. At least IMO.

Technically? What does that mean?

File sharing is the new word for stealing. Period.

If you know it’s for sale then buy it. Don’t get one from a file sharing site. No one has the right to take something that doesn’t belong to them for nothing.

I’ve heard all the justifications:

Big companies make big profits. They won’t notice me and thousands of other people stealing one of their songs. Besides, they treat their artists badly and they’re greedy. Yeah? So? That’s betweem them, their artists and their artists’ lawyers.

Don’t steal. It’s as simple as that.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Someone asked in his post why some governments would pass laws that they can’t police? Countries that do such things are generally lawless countries (like my home country ). So why would big governments pass laws they can’t police? (Because there are people with hidden agendas lobbying for such laws)

If file sharing was really a crime, then countries like the US would have to start with Google.

It’s a crime. France moved forward to stop illegal theft of intellectual property:

theregister.co.uk/2009/05/12/france_three_strikes/

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

A couple of other things to keep in mind - first, although we are supposed to obey civil laws when they are set up for just and moral reasons, we do not necessarily have to obey them when they are not set up in this fashion. I heard recently where a major recording-industry organization was lobbying the UK government to extend the period in which they “own” the rights to music/movies (before they go into the public domain) from 50 to 90 years, because the Beatles’ first album comes into the public domain in 2012 and they don’t want to lose that fat cash cow. I would argue that laws set up for no other reason then to perpetually benefit an organization not directly responsible for the activites producing the profits are ethically and morally wrong in themselves.

Secondly, organizations like the RIAA typically take $13-14 off of every album sold, leaving only $1-2 to the artist; and the manner in which they determine the portion of profits that is allocated to the artist has been deemed grossly unfair by many people within and without the industry, including several major recording artists (see Steve Vai’s letter of protest here: vai.com/AllAboutSteve/postcard_040220.html.) A better system would be a direct (through the Internet) system where the artist sells his recordings directly to the public in digital format at whatever price he or she chose. Several small/independent organizations, companies and artists are already doing this; but more major artists will have to break away from the media conglomerate before these activities will have any great effect on the status quo.

The RIAA gets what? The record companies make the money, not the RIAA. Next, artists can either produce their own work and sell it online and arrange their own concerts or just play live. What is grossly unfair? I think that anyone getting into the music business should contact a good lawyer and if he or she doesn’t like the contract, don’t sign it. No one in the music industry is forcing them to accept anything unfair. This is not a one sided issue. Aretha Franklin does everything herself now. No reason a group of artists couldn’t get together to do whatever they wanted.

And again, if a company, any company, can get to hold onto the rights to anything for 50 or 100 years, how does it hurt anyone? I work for a media company and with a number of artists and writers, and never, ever, ever, was anybody calling for things to enter the public domain faster. We come up with our own work, copyright and trademark it.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Spirithound]

These limits are exactly what we don’t want. It should be illegal to put limits on what people can do with things like CDs they buy. It violates human rights to a certain extend.

The whole idea of copyright/patent is really being used nowadays for selfish interests. Some people just want to make money at all costs.

Very often, one person’s right conflict directly with another person’s rights. If your right to play music on your computer conflicts with another person’s right to be justly compensated for making that music, where should the line be drawn?

 

[terminated007]

It’s a crime. France moved forward to stop illegal theft of intellectual property:

theregister.co.uk/2009/05/12/france_three_strikes/

Peace,
Ed

The law passed in France is clearly out of line with laws against theft. Do people get warnings for stealing? Come on man.

To the best of my knowledge, some human rights activists are planning to challenge the law in the European Court of Human Rights.
Why would this law not be effective? Because it wouldn’t affect those who use proxy servers, those who use Internet in libraries and those who have public Internet access (like at airports etc…)

This is just one of those laws that are just too hard to police. BTW, how will they get to know that someone is downloading illegally? People would have to be monitored. Thats why such a law can never be made in countries like the US where privacy seems to come before any other thing.

Fortunately, victims don’t get to go to jail or even pay a fine. Lets face facts here. If this was a serious issue, why would a big government like France pass such a law? This clearly shows that the French government doesn’t consider the issue as a big deal. They are just trying to please some lobbies.