Is file sharing a sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aragorn1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/net-piracy-taking-toll-on-jobs-european-study-says/article1503357/

'A study into Internet piracy by a Paris-based consultancy published on Wednesday showed that 1.2 million jobs in the European Union could be lost over the next five years if more is not done to clamp down on illegal downloading.

…Those industries generated €860-billion ($1.194-trillion) and employed 14.4 million people in 2008. But in the same year, €10-billion and 186,000 jobs were lost to piracy, the study found.

If that trend continues – and the rapid increase in illegal downloads and advancing piracy techniques suggest it will – then up to 1.2 million jobs and €240-billion worth of European commerce could be wiped out by 2015.’

Now, could the few holdouts please explain again how piracy and file sharing isn’t a sin?
  1. Notice they call it “piracy”. That’s both question-begging, and a “loaded term”. Somali gunmen hijacking cargo ships off the African coast, holding them captive, and killing their crews are truly pirates. And people turning a profit on the black market selling bootleg DVDs and Music are also “pirates” in a sense. But people sharing files, for no profit, on the privacy of their home computers? How is that at all an act of “piracy”? To call it so is to cheapen the term and deliberately overstate the issue.
  2. notice it says “could be lost” not “will be lost”. Is it immoral to do something that “could” result in people losing jobs?
  3. Suppose I invent a pill that cures Cancer. Do you have any idea how many people, now devoting their careers to cancer research and treatment would be jobless the next day? I’d go with millions. Does that mean that would be immoral to cure Cancer?
 
1)Notice they call it “piracy”. That’s both question-begging, and a “loaded term”. Somali gunmen hijacking cargo ships off the African coast, holding them captive, and killing their crews are truly pirates. And people turning a profit on the black market selling bootleg DVDs and Music are also “pirates” in a sense. But people sharing files, for no profit, on the privacy of their home computers? How is that at all an act of “piracy”? To call it so is to cheapen the term and deliberately overstate the issue.
Agreed, instead of piracy, we’ll call it theft. Instead of pirates, we’ll call them thieves.
  1. notice it says “could be lost” not “will be lost”. Is it immoral to do something that “could” result in people losing jobs?
YES. Throwing rocks off a bridge could result in the rock hitting a car and killing the driver.

Hitting the hockey player from behind could result in breaking his neck.

Drinking and Driving could result in killing someone.

Driving your car recklessly could put someones life in danger.

Toyota not fixing sticky gas pedals could result in someone dying.

Need I continue???
  1. Suppose I invent a pill that cures Cancer. Do you have any idea how many people, now devoting their careers to cancer research and treatment would be jobless the next day? I’d go with millions. Does that mean that would be immoral to cure Cancer?
This has got to be one of the worst analogies I’ve literally ever seen.
 
theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/net-piracy-taking-toll-on-jobs-european-study-says/article1503357/

'A study into Internet piracy by a Paris-based consultancy published on Wednesday showed that 1.2 million jobs in the European Union could be lost over the next five years if more is not done to clamp down on illegal downloading.

…Those industries generated €860-billion ($1.194-trillion) and employed 14.4 million people in 2008. But in the same year, €10-billion and 186,000 jobs were lost to piracy, the study found.

If that trend continues – and the rapid increase in illegal downloads and advancing piracy techniques suggest it will – then up to 1.2 million jobs and €240-billion worth of European commerce could be wiped out by 2015.’

Now, could the few holdouts please explain again how piracy and file sharing isn’t a sin?
Once again, file sharing is not illegal!!! (in any part of the world). I don’t know why you keep associating file sharing to sin.
Legal or illegal download is part of file sharing because a file or a copy of a file gets transferred from one location to another.

You should explain to us how that study makes “piracy” a sin.

Unfortunately, there are no references in that study. Nothing was said about how the study was carried out. There are no facts to support that study.

If “piracy” were such a big issue, why would the European Parliament be reluctant to pass stronger legislature? This quotation is from the article
But she said it would be tough to secure passage of stricter rules as several parliamentary groups are strongly opposed.
:confused::confused:

I personally don’t see how my behavior affects these industries. The fact is that, “piracy” or no “piracy”, I wouldn’t buy certain things.

You might also wanna read some of the comments on that article
I guess there is an assumption that everyone would actually buy all the songs they download for free. I would say that assumption is very flawed.
 
Agreed, instead of piracy, we’ll call it theft. Instead of pirates, we’ll call them thieves.

YES. Throwing rocks off a bridge could result in the rock hitting a car and killing the driver.

Hitting the hockey player from behind could result in breaking his neck.

Drinking and Driving could result in killing someone.

Driving your car recklessly could put someones life in danger.

Toyota not fixing sticky gas pedals could result in someone dying.

Need I continue???

This has got to be one of the worst analogies I’ve literally ever seen.
So any act that could result in harm to another person or their career is sinful?

-One company putting out a new product line to undercut their competition prices

-Driving your car at legal speeds in residential neighborhood where children might accidentally run out in front of them

-Flying an aircraft which might malfunction and crash

-Applying for a job at a business and preventing another applicant from getting employment

need I go on?

And the analogy is apt. You are the one who argued implicitly that filesharing is a sin because it results in the loss of employment. But if that is true then, presumably anything that results in the loss of employment is a sin (unless you are just making up ad hoc moral principles to suit your argumentative purposes). So then, if anything is morally impermissable which prevents others from keeping gainful employment, then, ironically curing cancer is ex hypothesi morally impermissible.

Btw, according to such a moral theory it would also be morally impermissible to achieve world peace, since the standing armies and armed forces of the Earth’s nations surely number in the tens of millions.

If you think this is absurd, then simply point me to a non question-begging principled distinction between these ways of putting millions of people out of work and filesharing.
 
Once again, file sharing is not illegal!!! (in any part of the world). I don’t know why you keep associating file sharing to sin.
Legal or illegal download is part of file sharing because a file or a copy of a file gets transferred from one location to another.
You should explain to us how that study makes “piracy” a sin.
 
Very sad that you should bring up this lame example. I have a close friend who was poor. He rarely had more than exact change for things. Guess what? Stealing anything would not have helped him. There are people living in their cars in the United States today because they got kicked out of their homes.

I know exactly what Adobe Creative Suite costs. We priced it.

I have been out of work and without any income but I didn’t think stealing was going to help me.

Prior to the internet, there were poor people and they didn’t have file sharing. So don’t use the poor as an excuse.

God bless,
Ed
I simply brought up that issue because you were claiming that everybody can afford.
My point remains. There are people who can’t afford, hence won’t buy. Thus wouldn’t be depriving producers of anything.
 
With all due respect, saying something is “kinda wrong” doesn’t explain anything.

God bless,
Ed
Again, when someone buys something, he becomes the owner of that thing and can do whatever he likes with it. If existing copyright laws don’t respect that, then the laws are kinda wrong.
 
Is it immoral to do something that “could” result in people losing jobs?
This is the first thing you say. So I point out, quite correctly, that yes, lots of things are immoral if by their actions, they could result in harm to another person.

You should have conceded that your point was moot, but I do understand that this is the internet and the internet is very serious business and concession, is a very rare breed on the web.

Instead, in an illogical vindication of your original point, you compare reckless behavior that holds the potential for harm, with innocuous activities, such as driving safely, flying in an airplane, being a better candidate in a job interview? 🤷
So any act that could result in harm to another person or their career is sinful?
Uhm, if your supposed to pay for software, but instead you get it for free, in effect stealing it and the manufacturer of the software doesn’t make their payroll and they have to lay off a bunch of people. Yes, the thievery is sinful as it negatively and directly impacted another person.
And the analogy is apt. You are the one who argued implicitly that filesharing is a sin because it results in the loss of employment. But if that is true then, presumably anything that results in the loss of employment is a sin (unless you are just making up ad hoc moral principles to suit your argumentative purposes). So then, if anything is morally impermissable which prevents others from keeping gainful employment, then, ironically curing cancer is ex hypothesi morally impermissible.
I’m not really much of a believer in the whole sin thing…Rather, I find Christians a little puzzling. The length that some will go to justify that stealing, isn’t actually stealing.
Btw, according to such a moral theory it would also be morally impermissible to achieve world peace, since the standing armies and armed forces of the Earth’s nations surely number in the tens of millions.
Your comparing people losing jobs because people are stealing intellectual property as being comparable to the loss of military jobs as a result of world peace?

I wish there was an emoticon that could show a little cartoon with his chin dropping to the floor.
 
There is really no need trying to twist the definition of stealing. Lawmakers are in no position to redefine stealing. (I am referring to the FBI… which I guess some are using to base their arguments).
Trying to redefine stealing is kinda equivalent to redefining marriage (as some lawmakers are doing or have done).

The term file sharing should also be very clear by now.
 
There is really no need trying to twist the definition of stealing. Lawmakers are in no position to redefine stealing. (I am referring to the FBI… which I guess some are using to base their arguments).
Trying to redefine stealing is kinda equivalent to redefining marriage (as some lawmakers are doing or have done).

The term file sharing should also be very clear by now.
Stealing is…taking without color of right.

Let me ask you…do you consider the following stealing;

Without having paid, de-scrambling a satellite signal out of the air and obtaining free satellite tv?

If you answer this question, I’ll have an explicitly clear understanding of where your coming from.
 
Again, when someone buys something, he becomes the owner of that thing and can do whatever he likes with it. If existing copyright laws don’t respect that, then the laws are kinda wrong.
Really? So when I buy a book, I’m permitted to scan the book and distribute the book for free on the internet?

I’m free to, old school style, photo copy the book and give it away for free?

You do realize that all of those acts take deserved income from the author, publisher and printer…and is against copyright legislation.

Does the fact that your siphoning deserved and earned income away from the author / artist…does it bother you?

( The answer is obvious)
 
In any event, just from the article, this seems quite factual;

Those industries generated €860-billion ($1.194-trillion) and employed 14.4 million people in 2008. But in the same year, €10-billion and 186,000 jobs were lost to piracy, the study found.
There is nothing mentioned in that article how and from where the results were obtained.
Anybody could make such a claim.
.
 
Really? So when I buy a book, I’m permitted to scan the book and distribute the book for free on the internet?

I’m free to, old school style, photo copy the book and give it away for free?

You do realize that all of those acts take deserved income from the author, publisher and printer…and is against copyright legislation.

Does the fact that your siphoning deserved and earned income away from the author / artist…does it bother you?

( The answer is obvious)
You might wanna read all the posts on this thread from the beginning.
Again, some of us disagree with the existing copyright laws because some of the laws don’t just make any sense.
Again, you guys keep on making the assumption that everybody will buy.
 
Really? So when I buy a book, I’m permitted to scan the book and distribute the book for free on the internet?

I’m free to, old school style, photo copy the book and give it away for free?

You do realize that all of those acts take deserved income from the author, publisher and printer…and is against copyright legislation.

Does the fact that your siphoning deserved and earned income away from the author / artist…does it bother you?

( The answer is obvious)
Ed…ur…I mean ZatZat…

Have you ever watched a movie, DVD, or television show in the home of a friend or relative?

If you have then you have, by your own logic, siphoned deserved and earned income away from the producers of that movie, DVD, or television programming. Does it bother you?
 
Ed…ur…I mean ZatZat…

Have you ever watched a movie, DVD, or television show in the home of a friend or relative?

If you have then you have, by your own logic, siphoned deserved and earned income away from the producers of that movie, DVD, or television programming. Does it bother you?
Certain intellectual property rights are granted upon renting, borrowing or buying said property.

One is free to use the items for personal use, free to share, but not free to distribute.

The law is quite clear.
 
Stealing is…taking without color of right.

Let me ask you…do you consider the following stealing;

Without having paid, de-scrambling a satellite signal out of the air and obtaining free satellite tv?

If you answer this question, I’ll have an explicitly clear understanding of where your coming from.
No it isn’t stealing, I’ve done this hundreds of times. At my mother’s house over Christmas break. She pays the satellite bill. But I am in her house alone, and I turn on the reciever, descramble the signal, and obtain the free Satellite TV.

Why is this not stealing? Perhaps you’ll say it’s because my mother paid for the programming, and is thereby entitled to give it to whomever she sees fit to let into her home.

Just like someone who pays for a DVD or video, and let’s other people into their homes via the internet has the right to let them use the DVD or video.

Should my mother be locked up as a criminal Zat?
 
Certain intellectual property rights are granted upon renting, borrowing or buying said property.

One is free to use the items for personal use, free to share, but not free to distribute.

The law is quite clear.
What’s the basis of your distinction between sharing and “distributing”? Is it pure mathematics? Say, fewer than 200 people is sharing, and more than 200 is “distributing”. Seems to me that unless you have some principled disctinction here, we’re just talking past each other.
 
…Without having paid, de-scrambling a satellite signal out of the air and obtaining free satellite tv?
If a friend of mine (or someone who has paid for it) decides to share the stuff with me, then I don’t see how that is related to stealing. In that case, I would be getting direct access from the new owner.
That would be more or less like the sharing of wireless Internet which is also common.

One of the points I have been making is this: I believe, I repeat – I believe that when one pays for something, he becomes the owner of that thing and has the right to do whatever he likes with it. Copyright lawmakers should understand that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top