The morality of File Sharing

[Pfaffenhoffen]

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.

I put these questions jut for thought provoking.
Listen: the authors are against Libraries that buy one book and make 500 people read it. So we think about software but we must see the broader view.
But again, these questions were more to make us think that to find answers, for which I am small and are too complex.
You know, there are copyright lawyers, such is the complexity of it…
My view is: we cannot solve the problem here in a few posts and say: “I AM RIGTH !!! YOU ARE WRONG !!!” or “I have got the Church Doctrine in my Purse”, “You are heretical!” for such sentences are ridiculous in front of the volumes of copyright laws.

 

[Lilsheep88]

I dont think God will send you to hell for downloading songs online… Just as long as you dont make profits off it or dont do it excessively. Heck even my priest said he video recorded soccer games from TV and he handles the body of Christ almost every day.

I still use frostwire (once in a blue moon) or catchtube (download) youtube videos online, but does that make me a bad person?? Does that affect my relationship with Christ? Nope not at all. Im actually a very relatively prayerful and very loving kid.

People can have their own opinion otherwise… As for me I think smoking ciggarettes are a sin but some people here in the forums think it isnt.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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.

That is an inaccurate characterization of copyright law. It does not allow people to own ideas. It allows them to own specific expressions they created of those ideas. There is nothing immoral about that.

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…

Is it your contention that something that is malum prohibitum cannot be wrong in the Catholic sense?

Violating copyright law is not the worst thing you can do, but neither is it perfectly OK. It can be like eating two grapes from the grocery store produce section without paying.

 

[exnihilo]

The law is not arbitrary. It would be worthwhile to understand the subject better.

Of course it is. When you determine and over the course of years change the length of time one may have a monopoly right to an idea that is arbitrary. The arbitrariness is in the length of time one may own an idea. The law 200 years ago allowed people to own and idea for only a few years. Now it allows ownership for generations. Was the law 200 years ago not moral because it did not protect the rights of owners of ideas or is the law today not moral?

That is an inaccurate characterization of copyright law. It does not allow people to own ideas. It allows them to own specific expressions they created of those ideas. There is nothing immoral about that.

No IP is ownership of ideas:

‘Intellectual property (IP) is a term referring to a number of distinct types of creations of the mind for which a set of exclusive rights are recognized under the corresponding fields of law.’

Creations of the mind are ideas. What else does the mind create?

Natural Rights/Justice Argument: this argument is based on Locke’s idea that a person has a natural right over the labour and/or products which is produced by his/her body. Appropriating these products is viewed as unjust. Although Locke had never explicitly stated that natural right applied to products of the mind,[23] it is possible to apply his argument to intellectual property rights, in which it would be unjust for people to misuse another’s ideas.

‘Some libertarian critics of intellectual property have argued that allowing property rights in **ideas **and information creates artificial scarcity and infringes on the right to own tangible property.’

All of this is from the IP article on Wikipedia.

IP ultimately gives rights to ideas because it is not the physical thing that is protected but something intangible. I can not recreate the same physical expression of something that is protected under IP. Therefore it is the idea behind that expression that is protected.

Is it your contention that something that is malum prohibitum cannot be wrong in the Catholic sense?

Violating copyright law is not the worst thing you can do, but neither is it perfectly OK. It can be like eating two grapes from the grocery store produce section without paying.

Malum prohibitum acts would be wrong by virtue of our obligation to obey the authority. So they would be wrong in the Catholic sense. But I would think they would tend not to be grave wrongs.

By the way the Wikipedia article on malum prohibitum says:

‘Some examples of mala prohibita include parking violations, copyright violations, tax laws, cultural taboos, and doing certain things without a license.’

I dont how IP and eating two grapes stack up against each other. I would think they would both be fairly low on the list of wrongs. But of course we should all strive to live completely moral lives.

 

[thewanderer]

Of course it is. When you determine and over the course of years change the length of time one may have a monopoly right to an idea that is arbitrary. The arbitrariness is in the length of time one may own an idea. The law 200 years ago allowed people to own and idea for only a few years. Now it allows ownership for generations. Was the law 200 years ago not moral because it did not protect the rights of owners of ideas or is the law today not moral?

No IP is ownership of ideas:

Creations of the mind are ideas. What else does the mind create?

All of this is from the IP article on Wikipedia.

IP ultimately gives rights to ideas because it is not the physical thing that is protected but something intangible. I can not recreate the same physical expression of something that is protected under IP. Therefore it is the idea behind that expression that is protected.

Malum prohibitum acts would be wrong by virtue of our obligation to obey the authority. So they would be wrong in the Catholic sense. But I would think they would tend not to be grave wrongs.

By the way the Wikipedia article on malum prohibitum says:

‘Some examples of mala prohibita include parking violations, copyright violations, tax laws, cultural taboos, and doing certain things without a license.’

I dont how IP and eating two grapes stack up against each other. I would think they would both be fairly low on the list of wrongs. But of course we should all strive to live completely moral lives.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

‘Some examples of mala prohibita include parking violations, copyright violations, tax laws, cultural taboos, and doing certain things without a license.’

I dont how IP and eating two grapes stack up against each other. I would think they would both be fairly low on the list of wrongs. But of course we should all strive to live completely moral lives.

It depends on the extent of the infraction. Stealing two grapes or downloading two songs may both be considered minor wrongs. But stealing an entire truckload of grapes or cracking 100 software programs to sell at a discount in large volumes could both be grave wrongs.

In fact I’m sure you can think of examples of grave wrongs among the mala prohibita that you (or Wikipedia) listed, like gross tax evasion or passing yourself off as a doctor even though you don’t have a medical license. So identifying copyright violation as malum prohibitum does not prove it cannot be gravely wrong.

 

[thewanderer]

It depends on the extent of the infraction. Stealing two grapes or downloading two songs may both be considered minor wrongs. But stealing an entire truckload of grapes or cracking 100 software programs to sell at a discount in large volumes could both be grave wrongs.

In fact I’m sure you can think of examples of grave wrongs among the mala prohibita that you (or Wikipedia) listed, like gross tax evasion or passing yourself off as a doctor even though you don’t have a medical license. So identifying copyright violation as malum prohibitum does not prove it cannot be gravely wrong.

Why do you assume exnihilo is “trying to prove” it can’t be gravely wrong as opposed to simply giving his understanding of the situation?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I think it it essential to distinguish between illegal and immoral.

Not everything legal is moral.
Not everything illegal is immoral.

Many legal things are immoral.
Many illegal things are moral.

 

[didymus]

A short video about copyright in the US, though it doesn’t address file sharing directly:

youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4&list=PL87DB3F7E8107A4AE&index=17&feature=plpp_video

 

[nesguy]

As another poster mentioned, file-sharing of any kind of copyrighted material is immoral. It is not immoral in and of itself, but immoral because to partake in file-sharing breaks the law. There is no justification to breaking the law. If you feel the law is detrimental enough to break, then perhaps you should go about spending your energies in changing the law to the way you would have it work. That is the right way to do things.

Also, any country that is a signatory of the Berne Convention shares copyrights. Thus, it is still illegal to violate France’s copyrights in the USA, and vice-versa. There may be little in the way of enforcement, but once again, that does not justify breaking said laws.

Pretty much the only people exempt from this in a moral sense are individuals living in countries who have no restrictions on copyright and aren’t signatories to the Berne Convention.

 

[InJesusItrust]

I don’t. When I ask myself what Jesus would do, I feel that he wouldn’t pirate or break copyrights just for pleasure or enjoyment. If He did do it I feel He would compensate the person for His actions.

Remember the bible also says that if someone steals because his life would be in danger otherwise to not hold it against him but to forgive him.

 

[smorin1487]

Alright, so for me I totally get that stealing is wrong, but what about “file sharing”? And this is where the digital media thing becomes an issue of law, and I don’t know the law so if anyone could help me out, that would be great.

What I’m getting at is… if I buy a CD, I can rip the CD onto my computer. I know that’s legal. Then what I could do is email the mp3 of a song to my friend. Is that legal? I have never heard anything saying it isn’t. If that’s legal, than technically Limewire, Frostwire, and other programs simply create a client for people to distribute their files en masse… I honestly don’t know if this is morally or legally unacceptable. I don’t know if I feel like it’s stealing just point blank. If I make a table, obviously just stealing the table is bad. But if you buy my table, then you recreate my table and give it to people, is that stealing? That’s essentially what you’re doing, it’s just that the computer makes this recreation very easy.

I would love someone with some real legal foundation and expertise to weigh in here! As far as I’m aware, to this date there has not been any ruling on this issue, I know Limewire was taken to court over this, but I hadn’t heard that there was a verdict.

 

[edwest2]

There was a time that I would beat myself up over this… but my final solution became so that sometimes I buy albums off itunes, sometimes download for free. But I buy most off my stuff on itunes now and If I cant get certain albums then I may use the free route.

Sharing is caring A form of agape love.

FYI: I once read that if your purchased an album off itunes, the artists only gets like 9 cents from your purchase or something like that… So sometimes I wonder if I purchase it through itunes if t it would make any difference at all since this will most likely only propagate a system where artists lose out if they decide to sell their material on itunes anyway.

Free, in this case, means stealing.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Answering a question with a question:

1. • 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…

1. 
   The waters are crystal clear. I think the poor African is more concerned about getting enough to eat, clean water and a roof over his head. You example is a poor justification for stealing. Stealing is stealing for the rich and poor.
   
   Peace,
   Ed

 

[edwest2]

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”.

Legal does not always mean moral, so it’s still a sin.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

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.

Copyright law exists. We live in the present. If you don’t have the right to copy then you’re stealing.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

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.

“stealing software” for what purpose? People in impoverished countries generally don’t have enough to eat and can’t afford a computer (if they can find one), much less software, and who will educate them?

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I dont think God will send you to hell for downloading songs online… Just as long as you dont make profits off it or dont do it excessively. Heck even my priest said he video recorded soccer games from TV and he handles the body of Christ almost every day.

I still use frostwire (once in a blue moon) or catchtube (download) youtube videos online, but does that make me a bad person?? Does that affect my relationship with Christ? Nope not at all. Im actually a very relatively prayerful and very loving kid.

People can have their own opinion otherwise… As for me I think smoking ciggarettes are a sin but some people here in the forums think it isnt.

This is just more justification for stealing. Opinions don’t matter. Here’s what the FBI thinks:

fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber/ipr/ipr

A little bit of stealing is still stealing and the ‘don’t make a profit off it’ is totally false. It’s just not true:

fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber/ipr/anti-piracy

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Alright, so for me I totally get that stealing is wrong, but what about “file sharing”? And this is where the digital media thing becomes an issue of law, and I don’t know the law so if anyone could help me out, that would be great.

What I’m getting at is… if I buy a CD, I can rip the CD onto my computer. I know that’s legal. Then what I could do is email the mp3 of a song to my friend. Is that legal? I have never heard anything saying it isn’t. If that’s legal, than technically Limewire, Frostwire, and other programs simply create a client for people to distribute their files en masse… I honestly don’t know if this is morally or legally unacceptable. I don’t know if I feel like it’s stealing just point blank. If I make a table, obviously just stealing the table is bad. But if you buy my table, then you recreate my table and give it to people, is that stealing? That’s essentially what you’re doing, it’s just that the computer makes this recreation very easy.

I would love someone with some real legal foundation and expertise to weigh in here! As far as I’m aware, to this date there has not been any ruling on this issue, I know Limewire was taken to court over this, but I hadn’t heard that there was a verdict.

There was:

nytimes.com/2010/05/13/technology/13lime.html

Your computer allows you to buy a song or download a movie legally, for money. But why pay anything if you can go to a stealing site and get it for nothing?

Now that people can scan books, and magazines and rip songs and movies, why should any business set up on the internet? Why should you put in the time and money to set up Netflix type streaming when you know the second the movie comes out on DVD it’ll be all over the internet?

Here’s some legal information:

fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/justice-department-charges-leaders-of-megaupload-with-widespread-online-copyright-infringement

justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/

Peace,
Ed

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Wow. I’m honestly shocked by the amount of moral relativism on this thread. I’m not used to seeing this on CAF.