The morality of File Sharing

[thewanderer]

It deprives them of what is rightfully theirs. Like I said, if an author charges you say £2.99 for an ebook, if you promulgate this ebook freely or recieve freely, you’d essentially be taking what does not belong to you. It was the author’s work and as such, he can charge a price if he pleases.

God Bless,

Christopher.

The question that needs to be answered though is why it is rightfully theirs, is it something that is intrinsically their right, or are the particular boundaries only their right because they are law?

 

[bmullins]

The fact that there are freeware versions of every piece of software that one could ‘need’ out there negates the argument. It’s still stealing, plain and simple.

In the case of communal ownership with food, there is clearly a need for food and someone with excess. Stealing food from someone who has no food, when you have food is still a sin. The same with stealing ‘better’ software when there is a free version available, it’s still a sin.

 

[Marybeloved]

You must first think at two different aspects of the problem. The first is uploading the original copyrighted files and the second is downloading the files and to that we can add re-uploading of the downloaded files.

The uploading of the original files violates a contract stipulated by two parts. If there is no intention to respect the stipulated contract then the individual should break the contract by returning the unused item for a refund. To violate the contract is sinful.

The downloading is not a sinful act in itself but is a participation in someone’s sin thus sinful. The second is sinful even if you are in a country where copyright laws do not exist because because it is not about breaking a law but it is participation in sin.

If those laws that have made it sin in your country don’t exist in my country, how could I possibly be “participating in sin”? That’s imposing a foreign law on another.

If I go and make those movies into copies and try to sell them, I could see how this is evil. But if I merely watch what is on the internet, I’m just watching what is there like I read wikipedia. I don’t see how that is stealing or evil.

 

[twoangels]

Perhaps theft is the wrong description of what happens in a violation of intellectual property. A better description might be the breaking of a promise and it becomes immoral for that reason. When you purchase copyrighted material you are implicitly entering into an agreement with the author of that material. You promise to abide by the terms of that agreement, regardless of the existence or non-existence of copyright laws. If the terms of that agreement are not clear, then perhaps there is a case to be made that subsequent sharing of that material is not immoral. But most people who buy such material are fully aware of the expectations of the license agreement. If those people then break their promise to the author of that material and share it in a manner that is disallowed by the agreement, then that is an immoral act. You do not need laws to tell you that. A totally private agreement would carry just as much moral weight.

Now we turn to the morality of the one who receives the “shared” material. This person did not enter into any agreement with the author of the material. So at first glance it appears that the recipient is not morally liable. But if the recipient is aware that the sharing of this material is a breaking of a promise by the one who is providing the material, then the recipient is cooperating with an act he knows is immoral for the one who is “sharing”. It is similar to (but not exactly the same as) buying what you know to be stolen property. You did not steal it. But your purchasing that property is enabling the thief to profit from his immoral act.

This still puts it in the ball park of “Render unto Ceasur what is Ceasur’s.” It is the existance of man-made contracts and copyright laws. Without these contracts, the creator of the original file has a natural right to make a profit off of the original files and any official copies of that file he makes.

If I a a software developer and really like Photoshop and I make a list of the features it has and completely program my own software that does the same thing that I distribute as freeware (like GIMP does), I may be luring potential photoshop customers away from purchasing photoshop and effect the sales of photoshop, I have not violated copyright law.

The issue is that copying files involves so little labor that it becomes impossible to get reimbursed let alone make a profit off of all the man hours and expenses that went into creating the original file. Thus the laws make sense. They encourage people to go into such industries because you can make a living off of it. The laws should be respected, but they should be understood as man-made laws not natural/divine laws.

 

[CGDouglas]

They charged a price, someone paid it and shared the product with another person for free. If you buy a DVD, must everyone else pay a price before they can watch it?

This then stems under the agreement of the contract. The Computer Game industry for the PC in particular are placing a binding of one game per person by account. See below for the two examples.

Marybeloved:

The author already sold his movies- Why are those who watch them from others who have bought them and shared them stealing?

The author’s right is based on the physical medium, which is required to compose the work.

Marybeloved:

If you were talking about hacking into a website and down-loading without paying, I could get why you call it theft. It would be like someone breaking into a store and stealing DVDs.

This is the reality of filesharing. It is mostly torrent websites, peer to peer networks, it’s how data distribution works. Theft does not mean one needs to literally make a breach in order to extract. People can undermine the right of fee the author has by simply bypassing and going to such sites.

Marybeloved:

But if a person merely shares what he has bought, how is it stealing if the others just watch it? Perhaps you can argue about immorality from a different principle, but I don’t see how this is theft.

Two scenarios:

1. An individual in the family buys a dvd, he then sits down with the family to watch it. There is nothing I believe in the contract that states you cannot watch as a family, or a group of people. This is due to not ‘distributing’ the media in question. If he went to a public meeting, displayed it publically, he will be violating the terms as is.

If someone hands over his own copy, he’s giving it away. If someone gives it back, vice versa. Again, this part is dictated on the bases of the copyright code.

1. An individual buys a dvd, he then copies it and gives it to another. Contract sees this as redistribution, as such undermining the author’s right. This is akin to theft.

Marybeloved:

Not if I can also watch DVDs I haven’t bought that others give me for free without stealing. It seems that the only principle is that the sharing happens in cyberspace, so that is what converts it into stealing, when if done in any other way it is merely sharing.

You are in a sense right, it does seem to be cyberspace related. This is particularly linked to the physical medium being distributed. This is due to the distribution of the file itself, as if one were to copy and distribute the dvd in the physical form. If someone however seeks something, and circumvent’s the author’s fee and gets it without cost, wouldn’t that be akin to theft?

God Bless,

Christopher.

 

[CGDouglas]

The question that needs to be answered though is why it is rightfully theirs, is it something that is intrinsically their right, or are the particular boundaries only their right because they are law?

It’s rightfully theirs because they own it, they made it. Just the same reason you wouldn’t take your neighbours phone lying on the floor next to you, because it’s their property.

God Bless,

Christopher.

 

[Cristiano]

Yes, thank you for calling my argument a red harring and than answering it with a straw man argument. I am not arguing that it is ok to break man-made laws. I’m arguing that they are man-made laws and thus that it is sinful because “Pay unto Ceasur what is Ceasurs” rather than “thou shall not steal.”

Now I understand what you are saying. My opinion is that in some cases it is stealing (e.g. I want to get the item but if I can download it I am not going to pay for it) and in other cases it is just breaking a man made law (e.g. I would not by the item but if I can download it for free then I do not mind having it). The problem that the second case can desensitizes the individual and brings up a rationalization for the first case.

 

[CGDouglas]

If I a a software developer and really like Photoshop and I make a list of the features it has and completely program my own software that does the same thing that I distribute as freeware (like GIMP does), I may be luring potential photoshop customers away from purchasing photoshop and effect the sales of photoshop, I have not violated copyright law.

Suppose then, that you charged a fee, and then you discover people have been taking your program without your approved fee. Have they then took from you by theft?

God Bless,

Christopher.

 

[twoangels]

They charged a price, someone paid it and shared the product with another person for free. If you buy a DVD, must everyone else pay a price before they can watch it?
The author already sold his movies- Why are those who watch them from others who have bought them and shared them stealing? If you were talking about hacking into a website and down-loading without paying, I could get why you call it theft. It would be like someone breaking into a store and stealing DVDs.

But if a person merely shares what he has bought, how is it stealing if the others just watch it? Perhaps you can argue about immorality from a different principle, but I don’t see how this is theft. Not if I can also watch DVDs I haven’t bought that others give me for free without stealing. It seems that the only principle is that the sharing happens in cyberspace, so that is what converts it into stealing, when if done in any other way it is merely sharing.

Legally DVD grant you the right to private performances. So if you get a group of friends together to watch a movie, that is fine. If you own a bar that has TV’s and a DVD player and play the movie there, its illegal. mpaa.org/contentprotection/public-performance-law

"No additional license is required to privately view a movie or other copyrighted work with a few friends and family or in certain narrowly defined face-to-face teaching activities. However, bars, restaurants, private clubs, prisons, lodges, factories, summer camps, public libraries, daycare facilities, parks and recreation departments, churches and non-classroom use at schools and universities are all examples of situations where a public performance license must be obtained. "

Copyright laws view the purchasing of such files, DVDs and the like not merely as purchasing their official copy, but purchasing a certain type of license for how you are to use that copy. This is where we get into the concept of intellectual property. You’re not purchasing the movie, you’re purchasing the limited license to the movie and receiving the movie in a certain format.

This is why it is considered illegal to make copies and distrubte them. You did not purchase the movie or the song, you purchased a license to a movie or song which gives you a right to one official copy and the right to make copies (like back ups) for your private use.

 

[Marybeloved]

Legally DVD grant you the right to private performances. So if you get a group of friends together to watch a movie, that is fine. If you own a bar that has TV’s and a DVD player and play the movie there, its illegal. mpaa.org/contentprotection/public-performance-law

"No additional license is required to privately view a movie or other copyrighted work with a few friends and family or in certain narrowly defined face-to-face teaching activities. However, bars, restaurants, private clubs, prisons, lodges, factories, summer camps, public libraries, daycare facilities, parks and recreation departments, churches and non-classroom use at schools and universities are all examples of situations where a public performance license must be obtained. "

Copyright laws view the purchasing of such files, DVDs and the like not merely as purchasing their official copy, but purchasing a certain type of license for how you are to use that copy. This is where we get into the concept of intellectual property. You’re not purchasing the movie, you’re purchasing the limited license to the movie and receiving the movie in a certain format.

This is why it is considered illegal to make copies and distrubte them. You did not purchase the movie or the song, you purchased a license to a movie or song which gives you a right to one official copy and the right to make copies (like back ups) for your private use.

Right. But per catholic teaching on morality, who owns this song or the right to hear it? So if I’m watching a you-tube video/movie, and then I shut my lap top and go on about my business, how am I stealing? I did not put the video there- I found it there. I’m not making copies and I’m certainly not distributing it. How am I as a Catholic stealing?

The best it seems to me is this: It’s only stealing because the Government has decided to create “property” in it. But is it really property?

I can get it about people earning their worth- But who says that if you write good songs, they become your private property in the same way that your car is your property? These people make their money after all. They just would like to make tonnes and tonnes more than they do. For me, I see IP as a way for the society to reward innovation, and diligence- But NOT as any kind of true property. If it was, there would be no 20, 50, 70 year expiry dates. It would just remain in the family forever like your money. The way I see it, if I happen to come across a movie/song, and I watch/listen to it, they are still going to make their money.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This still puts it in the ball park of “Render unto Ceasur what is Ceasur’s.” It is the existence of man-made contracts and copyright laws. Without these contracts, the creator of the original file has a natural right to make a profit off of the original files and any official copies of that file he makes.

A natural right to make a profit? On what basis? And remember you said the right existed even without the contracts, so don’t base your answer on copyright law.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If an individual takes something without paying, its theft.

But how do you answer the criticism that nothing was actually “taken”? The normal understanding of theft is that a physical something was taken from a victim who is now harmed because he no longer has that which has been taken from him. It is hard to see how this understanding of theft applies in the case of improper sharing of information. That which is taken is still there. The only harm done is that the author is deprived of income from what should have been a sale. But that is only true if there would have been a sale otherwise. And that cannot be concluded in the case at hand. In most cases of improper file sharing, the recipient of the file would not have purchased the item if he could not get it for free. In that case the author is no richer when the “theft” is prevented. He is in exactly the same place as he would have been if the “theft” did take place. In this respect this kind of “theft” is unlike what we normally call theft, where the victim ends up poorer because of the theft.

I noticed that you cleverly excerpted from my post to make it look like I thought file sharing was moral. Please read my whole post. I do think it is immoral, but not on the basis of calling it theft.

 

[CGDouglas]

But how do you answer the criticism that nothing was actually “taken”?

Simple, the author gave a price for his work.

LeafByNiggle:

The normal understanding of theft is that a physical something was taken from a victim who is now harmed because he no longer has that which has been taken from him.

Yes, within the physical form.

LeafByNiggle:

It is hard to see how this understanding of theft applies in the case of improper sharing of information. That which is taken is still there. The only harm done is that the author is deprived of income from what should have been a sale. But that is only true if there would have been a sale otherwise. And that cannot be concluded in the case at hand.

Whether or not the author had a sale in the first place is not the question in point. My question to you is this, do you find it morally acceptable to get an mp3 by other means when the author of the mp3 is selling it at a price?

LeafByNiggle:

In most cases of improper file sharing, the recipient of the file would not have purchased the item if he could not get it for free.

There are people who would, and who wouldn’t.

LeafByNiggle:

In that case the author is no richer when the “theft” is prevented. He is in exactly the same place as he would have been if the “theft” did take place. In this respect this kind of “theft” is unlike what we normally call theft, where the victim ends up poorer because of the theft.

If the author does not sell something, and there was no form of file sharing, he won’t lose anything because by the market, it just didn’t sell. If the author however, does not gain money, and his work is being promulgated by certain means.

Two ways this occurs: through breaching of private data, and through the obtaining of a license to then violate the license.

It means he does lose the transaction that he ought to have gained through purchase. Theft would still be theft.

Again, if the author sold an ebook for £2.99, would you find another way to get it without paying the author for his work? Or would you buy his work?

God Bless,

Christopher.

 

[CGDouglas]

A natural right to make a profit? On what basis? And remember you said the right existed even without the contracts, so don’t base your answer on copyright law.

Posted earlier:

It’s rightfully theirs because they own it, they made it. Just the same reason you wouldn’t take your neighbours phone lying on the floor next to you, because it’s their property.

God Bless,

Christopher.

 

[CGDouglas]

I noticed that you cleverly excerpted from my post to make it look like I thought file sharing was moral. Please read my whole post. I do think it is immoral, but not on the basis of calling it theft.

Not my intention, I just merely pick out points and address them, my apologises. I also addressed the reason why due to the promulgation of the file, so in all honesty, you also did cut my argument short, intentional or not.

God Bless,

Christopher.

 

[Marybeloved]

Posted earlier:

It’s rightfully theirs because they own it, they made it. Just the same reason you wouldn’t take your neighbors phone lying on the floor next to you, because it’s their property.

If this is true, then why does it stop being theirs after a number of years? Is the Government then forcefully confiscating private property and redistributing it to the masses without compensation (In other words, communism)? That is after 20/50/70 years when it stops protecting it?

 

[CGDouglas]

If this is true, then why does it stop being theirs after a number of years? Is the Government then forcefully confiscating private property and redistributing it to the masses without compensation (In other words, communism)? That is after 20/50/70 years when it stops protecting it?

It basically occurs when the author dies and there’s a period of I think 25 years. The public domain in this sense isn’t actually governmental, but public beyond government. Although Copyright laws themselves are governmental. Take Project Guttenburg for example.

Not all of it does however, I believe Tolkien’s has long since past (25 years I believe for the copyright issue) but his son controls it, if I understand correctly.

God Bless,

Christopher.

 

[Marybeloved]

It basically occurs when the author dies and there’s a period of I think 25 years. The public domain in this sense isn’t actually governmental, but public beyond government. Although Copyright laws themselves are governmental. Take Project Guttenburg for example.

Not all of it does however, I believe Tolkien’s has long since past (25 years I believe for the copyright issue) but his son controls it, if I understand correctly.

You are not answering the question: Why should it belong to the public any number of years after you die at all? That is, if it truly is (like you said) property like my neighbor’s phone? Does the public get to freely access and use your money or phones or land or other tangible property 25 years after you die? Why can’t his family inherit it the same way and for the same duration as they do the rest of his property?

 

[exnihilo]

Taking the individual’s work and not paying his price, or circumventing it so that the author does not recieve his due royalty or fee for the work he has charged, is a deprevation and a violation. It’s basically theft.

Ah, so then copyright law actually formalizes and socializes theft because at the end of the protection period the copyrighted material is owned by the public without the owner receiving compensation, his fee, for the public to use the property. If you are going to claim it is theft for the individual then you must admit society takes part in a much greater theft. Your only remedy is to make copyright last in perpetuity.

This is why it is considered illegal to make copies and distrubte them. You did not purchase the movie or the song, you purchased a license to a movie or song which gives you a right to one official copy and the right to make copies (like back ups) for your private use.

I believe the ability to copy is called a mechanical license. I have a related question for all those who say copyright is theft. Do you realize that religious organizations have a special exemption which allows them to perform copyrighted pieces without paying a performance license only during a religious service. This means the church is stealing from artists by not paying what they should if copyright is theft and not just a matter of wrong by law. Also, have you ever received a CD of a church service? If so and if during that service a copyrighted Bible (which is any Bible translated after 1923) was read or a copyrighted song was performed you are in violation of the law and own stolen property. There is no exemption to the requirement of a mechanical license for religious performances.

Did you videotape a service? Maybe a wedding? Worse still did you videotape it and put it on YouTube? now you have violated copyright in two ways. You did not have a mechanical license and you did not have a synchronization license (to broadcast). I’d like for all those who think copyright is theft to really learn the law and actually live by it. The law is insane and unjust.

 

[twoangels]

Right. But per catholic teaching on morality, who owns this song or the right to hear it? So if I’m watching a you-tube video/movie, and then I shut my lap top and go on about my business, how am I stealing? I did not put the video there- I found it there. I’m not making copies and I’m certainly not distributing it. How am I as a Catholic stealing?

The best it seems to me is this: It’s only stealing because the Government has decided to create “property” in it. But is it really property?

I agree with you. My argument is that this falls under paying to Ceasur what belongs to Ceasur. We have an obligation to follows the laws of our country.