The morality of File Sharing

  • Thread starter Thread starter Redbaron998
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Redbaron998 said:
Hey Everyone,

So my question is about the morality of file sharing. (Downloading books, music, games, movies etc…)

So I believe this question has several tiers. Is it moral to download?
  1. Files that are out of print so you are unable to buy them even if you wanted to.
  2. Files that are old and you would like to have but would not pay for.
  3. New files that you could buy.
I, like most people, believe that the laborer has a right to the fruits of their labor so I would say that downloading new materials (such as bootleg movies) would be immoral, but things that are out of print would be permissable since you could not buy them anyways, as for the second catagory I am not sure.

What do yall think?

God Bless,
Red
Click to expand...
Answering a question with a question:
    • may I lend a book to somebody so that person ca read it?
    • Libraries may have books for everybody to read?
    • May I lend a CD of music or a DVD of movies for my friends to see in a party or to hear it?
    • may I lend my chess table so that my friends may play chess?
    On the other hand:
    • is it a sin for a poor African to have a illegal program in his 4th hand computer, a program that would cost him 2 years of wages?
    OK, I think that there must be rules.
    But let’s not put the Church into it.
    Waters are murky here…
 
Pfaffenhoffen said:
  • is it a sin for a poor African to have a illegal program in his 4th hand computer, a program that would cost him 2 years of wages?
.
Click to expand...
If we were talking about bread, to survive, then this would make sense. We aren’t talking about bread… or any necessities for life…
Pfaffenhoffen said:
OK, I think that there must be rules.
But let’s not put the Church into it.
Waters are murky here… .
Click to expand...
Lets not put the church into it? Waters are murky? Relativism. Nothing like this should be coming out of the mouth of a Catholic. The church is Christ, and therefore belongs in everything. And the waters are not murky: theft is theft, sin is sin. Jean-valjean stealing bread is one thing, stealing non-necessities are something different.
 
Redbaron998 said:
Hey Everyone,

So my question is about the morality of file sharing. (Downloading books, music, games, movies etc…)

So I believe this question has several tiers. Is it moral to download?
  1. Files that are out of print so you are unable to buy them even if you wanted to.
Yes. They are abandoned property. I’ve done this, usually with books I’ve bought multiple copies of & lent or given away. The author & publisher are not losing.
  1. Files that are old and you would like to have but would not pay for.
No. Although I could see downloading (and then erasing) to decide if you want to buy.
  1. New files that you could buy.
Same as above.
Click to expand...
Of course, all of this depends on on the civil law where you are. US copyright is absolutely idiotic and results from media corps buying Congress. Still, the law is the law. A trip to Canada or the EU means a lot of things are not a sin (because they are legal), not because “God hates piracy”.
 
Redbaron998 said:
Hey Everyone,

So my question is about the morality of file sharing. (Downloading books, music, games, movies etc…)

So I believe this question has several tiers. Is it moral to download?
  1. Files that are out of print so you are unable to buy them even if you wanted to.
  2. Files that are old and you would like to have but would not pay for.
  3. New files that you could buy.
I, like most people, believe that the laborer has a right to the fruits of their labor so I would say that downloading new materials (such as bootleg movies) would be immoral, but things that are out of print would be permissable since you could not buy them anyways, as for the second catagory I am not sure.

What do yall think?

God Bless,
Red
Click to expand...
If you are doing it legally, I don’t know why it would be an issue.
 
didymus said:
Of course, all of this depends on on the civil law where you are. US copyright is absolutely idiotic and results from media corps buying Congress. Still, the law is the law. A trip to Canada or the EU means a lot of things are not a sin (because they are legal), not because “God hates piracy”.
Click to expand...
God doesn’t want us to steal. Legal does not always mean moral.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
God doesn’t want us to steal. Legal does not always mean moral.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
But in the case of copyright the sin is not breaking natural law, but civil law. The relevant commandment is not “Thou shalt not steal.” but “Render under unto Caesar.”

Let’s say that copyright never existed but composers were paid (once) for their works and musicians paid for their performances while anyone was free to record. This would still satisfy the requirement that “the worker is worthy of his hire”.
And what is just described is the system under which Shakespeare, Bach, Mozart & Beethoven labored. Certainly sound recording didn’t exist at the time but print editions soon came out after first performances in many cases.
 
didymus never said copyright laws don’t exist, rather he gave the reason for it being wrong to download illegally as being that it is against the laws of the country you are living in. Just like its wrong in the US for anyone under 21 to buy alcohal. Its not as if there is anything intrinsically wrong with drinking before you turn 21 years old, but because that is part of the laws of the country, it becomes wrong. Didymus was just point out the distinction between things which are wrong in themselves and things which are wrong because it is disobeying a legitimate authority
 
I get that but who is legitimate authority? Laws are created by people. Underage drinking has been around for a long time, but no one should wait for a law to make it unacceptable. The same for file sharing. I don’t know all the reasons some decide to steal someone else’s work and make it available to all for nothing.

Once it became possible to turn some media into digital bits, some decided to steal it. Since some people don’t realize the very real harm it’s causing, laws are being crafted right now to stop it. And for those who don’t like copyright law, you’re free to write, perform, draw and post whatever you want for free right now. Who’s stopping you? I think a lack of imagination is part of the problem. Who was George Lucas before Star Wars?

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
I get that but who is legitimate authority? Laws are created by people. Underage drinking has been around for a long time, but no one should wait for a law to make it unacceptable. The same for file sharing. I don’t know all the reasons some decide to steal someone else’s work and make it available to all for nothing.

Once it became possible to turn some media into digital bits, some decided to steal it. Since some people don’t realize the very real harm it’s causing, laws are being crafted right now to stop it. And for those who don’t like copyright law, you’re free to write, perform, draw and post whatever you want for free right now. Who’s stopping you? I think a lack of imagination is part of the problem. Who was George Lucas before Star Wars?

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Legitimate authority is anyone who you have a duty to obey, parents, teachers, church leaders, government etc. Obviously one needn’t follow a law I it’s immoral, but not all laws promulgated by legitimate authorities are natural laws in and of themselves. The example of setting age limits on drinking alcohol was meant to help see this. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with drinking alcohol in moderation before one is 21 years old. There is something wrong with drinking under the age of 21 in the US because it is a law to be obeyed from a legitimate authority. However, in Ireland the drinking age is 18. In Belgium it is 16 for wine and beer ( I think) and 18 for everything else. My point is that there is no such thing as “underage drinking” until an age limit has been set by a legitimate authority.

To be honest, copyright issues have always seemed anything but black and white to me. I mean, yes it’s very clear that it’s wrong to illegally download copyrighted content, I’m not arguin against that at all. Rather, it’s the application of it on a more personal basis. If he point of a copyright is to ensure that if someone uses it they pay for it, why is it ok to show your movies to a friend? Is it ok to lend other people your cd’s? Especially if you still have he music on your own mp3 player. I think the fact that all of these questions exist is a sign that sharing intellectual property of others without them paying for it/ receiving the same is no in and of itself wrong. The laws are put in place by a human authority (albeit which has power over you only because God has allowed it) to try to help remedy the problem of people stealing other peoples ideas/fame/credit/money. I’m not sure if it is the best way to remedy this situation(everything considered) but for now it is the law.
 
James924 said:
If we were talking about bread, to survive, then this would make sense. We aren’t talking about bread… or any necessities for life…

Lets not put the church into it? Waters are murky? Relativism. Nothing like this should be coming out of the mouth of a Catholic. The church is Christ, and therefore belongs in everything. And the waters are not murky: theft is theft, sin is sin. Jean-valjean stealing bread is one thing, stealing non-necessities are something different.
Click to expand...
Oh! so, for your, bread is enough for Africans, not a little eggs, milk, water, just bread.
And food for the Spirit…nothing…

Thanks to God, Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation does not think like that…

If this is what it takes to be a relativist, I am a relativist…
 
Pfaffenhoffen said:
Oh! so, for your, bread is enough for Africans, not a little eggs, milk, water, just bread.
And food for the Spirit…nothing…

Thanks to God, Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation does not think like that…

If this is what it takes to be a relativist, I am a relativist…
Click to expand...
I’m glad you mentioned the pro-abortion Mr. Gates, of whom you seem to be a fan.

Please read this article:

ukprogressive.co.uk/op-ed-bill-gates-favors-the-death-panel-and-vaccines-to-decrease-the-worlds-population/article17430.html

In the mean time, don’t be silly. You and I both know that I was using bread as an example. I’m refering to necessities vs computer software. Eggs, milk water, clothing, shoes, flintstones vitamins… Microsoft office and Adobe Photoshop just don’t seem to fit in to that list…call me crazy…

By the way, you don’t have to say that you’re a relativist. I already know you are. And a Catholic cannot be a relativist and a faithful Catholic at the same time.
 
Pfaffenhoffen said:
Answering a question with a question:
    • may I lend a book to somebody so that person ca read it?
    • Libraries may have books for everybody to read?
    • May I lend a CD of music or a DVD of movies for my friends to see in a party or to hear it?
    • may I lend my chess table so that my friends may play chess?
Click to expand...

  1. None of these deprive the creator of these items of their rightful due. Lend a book, there’s still just the one copy. While your friend is using it, you cannot. With file sharing, you both get the benefit of having each bought the product, yet only one copy has been bought.

    It may take some time before this is recognised as the theft it is.
    On the other hand:
    • is it a sin for a poor African to have a illegal program in his 4th hand computer, a program that would cost him 2 years of wages?
    Click to expand...
    OK, I think that there must be rules.
    But let’s not put the Church into it.
    Waters are murky here…
    Click to expand...
    Waters are indeed murky when talking about the choices someone in an impoverished country faces. Particularly when the wealth of developed nations is built on the poverty of less developed ones.

    Someone in such a dire situation may very well be able to claim that stealing such software is the least repugnant choice available to them.
 
Oh, there was a post back in the thread stating that artists receive only minimal royalties for iTunes songs. This is the norm, even for CDs etc. Live performance is how most musicians make their money.
 
Nicko said:
Oh, there was a post back in the thread stating that artists receive only minimal royalties for iTunes songs. This is the norm, even for CDs etc. Live performance is how most musicians make their money.
Click to expand...
A common misconception. The norm is unacceptable. The same is true for e-books. Who books the venue for the musician, who pays for it? What about the people who dress the stage, set up the sound system and so on? Who pays them? And what is the norm for an admission ticket?

Peace,
Ed
 
Nicko said:
None of these deprive the creator of these items of their rightful due. Lend a book, there’s still just the one copy. While your friend is using it, you cannot. With file sharing, you both get the benefit of having each bought the product, yet only one copy has been bought.

It may take some time before this is recognised as the theft it is.

Waters are indeed murky when talking about the choices someone in an impoverished country faces. Particularly when the wealth of developed nations is built on the poverty of less developed ones.

Someone in such a dire situation may very well be able to claim that stealing such software is the least repugnant choice available to them.
Click to expand...
I highly doubt anyone in a dire situation has a need for software since they are unlikely to own a computer or be able to afford to pay for internet service. The wealth of developed nations is built on on the poverty of less developed ones? Can you explain? Are the greedy exploiting cheap labor? Yes, but they are also free to donate $100 million or so for basic needs like health care, food and other necessities in the most impoverished of these countries.

Peace,
Ed
 
It is wrong because it is illegal, but so is speeding. Personally I would consider speeding far more immoral because speeding actually endangers lives. Copyright laws themselves are pretty immoral because they allow people to own ideas. I believe very much in private property but I’m not inclined to see ideas as man’s property.

You have no need for music or movies. You are probably better off not absorbing the content of most modern media. We as a people would be better off if for entertainment we sat around with friends and family and made our own as people did in the recent past.

There is plenty of legitimate free software out there. You can use Linux which is a completely free operating system. It has many programs to do just about anything you need to do which are also free.

There are plenty of free books whose copyright has expired. The books at Project Guttenberg are just as entertaining as ones published today. And apart from science or modern history and culture books are probably more edifying.

Probably the best thing we can do is Christians is not buy or ‘share’ modern media in hopes of putting the corporations out of business. These corporations do not have Christian values and do not deserve our money or our support.
didymus said:
Of course, all of this depends on on the civil law where you are. US copyright is absolutely idiotic and results from media corps buying Congress. Still, the law is the law. A trip to Canada or the EU means a lot of things are not a sin (because they are legal), not because “God hates piracy”.
Click to expand...
I agree completley.
didymus said:
But in the case of copyright the sin is not breaking natural law, but civil law. The relevant commandment is not “Thou shalt not steal.” but “Render under unto Caesar.”
Click to expand...
Copyright law is malum prohibitum, meaning it is wrong because it is prohibited and not malum in se, meaning it is wrong because it is in itself wrong. One way we can know this is because the law has changed regarding the length of time a copyright exists. It went from a less than twenty years to a couple of lifetimes. The length of copyright is arbitrary thus the law itself is.
 
James924 said:
I’m glad you mentioned the pro-abortion Mr. Gates, of whom you seem to be a fan.

Please read this article:

ukprogressive.co.uk/op-ed-bill-gates-favors-the-death-panel-and-vaccines-to-decrease-the-worlds-population/article17430.html

In the mean time, don’t be silly. You and I both know that I was using bread as an example. I’m refering to necessities vs computer software. Eggs, milk water, clothing, shoes, flintstones vitamins… Microsoft office and Adobe Photoshop just don’t seem to fit in to that list…call me crazy…

By the way, you don’t have to say that you’re a relativist. I already know you are. And a Catholic cannot be a relativist and a faithful Catholic at the same time.
Click to expand...
I am a relativist because i think your theory is relative…
So…for you…computers are not a necessity in Africa…by the way, I was born in Africa and I know Africa well.
So, eggs, milk, vitamins…no culture…
You seem to know what you know only.
The pro-abortion Mr. Gates gave millions of licenses of Microsoft to Africa. And you say that Microsoft doe not have anything to do with it?
I am a relativist…
And you know, non-relativist should be well informed…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top