The morality of File Sharing

[thewanderer]

I’d say it’s something they produce. Patent technology is also in this form. Intellectual offspring so to speak.

I find it hard to see how an idea can be owned… perhaps a certain expression of an idea, but not the idea itself.

Public domain is tricky, as I’ve repeated yet again, the Tolkien family still hold rights over Lord of the Rings and so forth, even after 25 years of the authors death.

This isn’t about what certain peop have or don’t have, its a question of whether filesharing is intrinsically wrong or it is only wrong because it is against the law

It’s difficult to argue from natural law. I can only argue from the argument of loss, and that is the author does lose something in the process when he does attribute a price to it. It is his work, like the carpenter makes a chair. Who owns the concept of a chair is not at this point important. But when the carpenter makes it, and charges a price for it, and the individual takes the chair without the price. Surely the same can be applicable in sharing when the author places a price, and people deliberately circumvent it?

God Bless,

Christopher.

The reason I am trying to get an answer with respect to natural law is because that is what the question is. Nobody is arguing about whether or not its ok when there are laws in place saying that its not. What we’er trying to figure out is precisely why its wrong, is it simply a matter of rendering unto caeser? or is there more to it than that? Some people tend to arguing against filesharing as though it were wrong in and of itself and I find it very hard to see how that can be the case, but I don’t know all there is to know about filesharing, thats why I’m asking for a clarification as to why you seem to think that it is always wrrong, ie against the natural law.

 

[CGDouglas]

"thewanderer:

The reason I am trying to get an answer with respect to natural law is because that is what the question is. Nobody is arguing about whether or not its ok when there are laws in place saying that its not. What we’er trying to figure out is precisely why its wrong, is it simply a matter of rendering unto caeser? or is there more to it than that? Some people tend to arguing against filesharing as though it were wrong in and of itself and I find it very hard to see how that can be the case, but I don’t know all there is to know about filesharing, thats why I’m asking for a clarification as to why you seem to think that it is always wrrong, ie against the natural law.

My continous argument is mainly from the argument of loss, if someone uses something and doesn’t pay for it, the individual loses something that he should have earned.

Would then this be theft, or rendering unto caeser?

Itt would be breaking the law of the land, which is wrong

I just can’t shake the feeling that it’s something more. File sharing is something I just avoid really. For purchasing something you want seems to be a moral reponsibility, contrary to going around it without the cost. It just seems to stem above the law of the land, a duty so to speak.

God Bless,

Christopher.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If one takes the e-book for example, and sells it for a price. If one were to violate this and find an alternative way to obtain the said e-book, wouldn’t the author’s sale be hit? Thus meaning that the author then looses or is hurt by such an effect?

I agree. Some people really were going to buy the e-book but they didn’t and the author suffers a loss.

My point is I wish to know what motivation you find in such, would it be ‘Render unto Caesar’? What does one simply do when he is faced with the choice of paying for say an mp3, or simply bypass the price and get it freely? For me, it seems entrenched that the right thing to do is either buy his work or do without it.

I think we are in agreement about the fact that file sharing is immoral. I would just rather see it as a violation of a promise made by the original purchaser rather than as theft.

You make a lot of great points though, well done.

Thank you.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I meant to say “does not have a natural right”

OK, that makes sense now.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This isn’t about what certain peop have or don’t have, its a question of whether filesharing is intrinsically wrong or it is only wrong because it is against the law.

Maybe another example would help. Suppose I enter into a handshake agreement with my neighbor. I agree to patch his leaking roof in return for some potatoes from his garden. He gives me the potatoes, but then I am lazy and never get around to patching his roof. Since the agreement was only on a handshake, he is unable to use the law to recover damages. Is what I did intrinsically wrong, or was it only wrong because it was against the law?

This example has some similarities with file sharing because when I buy the original DVD, I enter into an agreement not to use that DVD in certain unapproved ways.

 

[Marybeloved]

My continous argument is mainly from the argument of loss, if someone uses something and doesn’t pay for it, the individual loses something that he should have earned.

Would then this be theft, or rendering unto caeser?

But Douglas, I think that your argument makes an assumption of ownership by that individual. That’s the only way you can argue that it’s theft- because you believe it is the property of that person to begin with. I don’t think it is his property because the laws do not protect this indefinitely. If you look at it from my perspective, it looks different because the creative idea/IP is already public property. The individual has been granted an exclusive permission to make profits from it for a certain duration. By that I see (personally) that no-one else can make profits from this idea at this time, by legitimate decree of rightful authority (Law)-But does it necessarily mean that everyone is by virtue of that right given to the creators, restricted from using it without paying the profits to that person, during this time too? Like forcing us to pay someone for an idea that’s not property before we use it? That’s making it property almost. I think that the Government has the full rights at this time (The 50/70 years) to shut down the sites and places that take this permission to use this idea for profit at a time when the government has restricted it- sure. But if I see a video without doing this myself, I’m not usurping the permission.

That’s why I see the idea of trying to make money out of this idea during this time is wrong. But if I see a video on you-tube, I’m not stealing simply by seeing it, because I’m not taking it from anyone. It is you-tube that must answer, not me, for having it there without permission- I’m just seeing material that is not privately owned by anyone. If I try to usurp the exclusive rights to use it for profit at this time, it’s wrong to me. I could be wrong but in any case, I don’t see that simply watching the videos without copying them could be grave sin.

 

[thewanderer]

My continous argument is mainly from the argument of loss, if someone uses something and doesn’t pay for it, the individual loses something that he should have earned.

Would then this be theft, or rendering unto caeser?

First of all, I find leafby niggles arguments about using the term ‘theft’ quite compelling.

Also, it depends on what right they have to earn it in the first place. I guess thats where I’m hung up. That aspect of intellectual property is very hazy to me and I do not yet see it as something that a person naturally has the right to. I see that copyright laws were put in place for a reason, to help ensure that those who produce goods that can be so easily and cheaply replicated can still make a living from producing said goods, but I have trouble seeing it as intrinsically wrong. I believe the fact that copyrights expire is a sign that there are very few people who actually view it as intrinsically wrong, but rather as a human law put in place for a good reason. Just like there are laws about how old one must be before one can legally drink. Its there for a good reason, but there is nothing intrinsically wrong with drinking before one turns 21. There are different drinking ages in different countries precisely because of that.

I would say that at the very least it is a matter of rendering to Caeser, but that I am as of yet unconvinced that it is intrinsically wrong because of certain problems I see with that position.

I just can’t shake the feeling that it’s something more. File sharing is something I just avoid really. For purchasing something you want seems to be a moral reponsibility, contrary to going around it without the cost. It just seems to stem above the law of the land, a duty so to speak.

God Bless,

Christopher.

Its something I would avoid too, now, if I lived in a country without copyrights that might be a different matter, though even there there are probably limits as to what is morally allowable, which is why I’m so curious to figure out to what extent the natural law is involved with filesharing.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But Douglas, i think that your argument makes an assumption of ownership by that individual. That’s the only way you can argue that it’s theft- because you believe it is the property of that person to begin with. I don’t think it is his property because the laws do not protect this indefinitely.

The fact that a government can revoke ownership does not in itself imply that there was no ownership. Government can also take your land by eminent domain. Does that mean you can’t own land, or that the land is not your property?

If you look at it from my perspective, it looks different because the creative idea/IP is already public property.

Not necessarily. Suppose I hire a research firm to prepare a report for our exclusive use. That report is not public. But now suppose I turn around and offer that report for sale on the public market. I would be violating the agreement we had with the research company and violating their copyright.

But if I see a video on you-tube, I’m not stealing by seeing it, because I’m not taking it from anyone. It is you-tube that must answer, not me- I’m just seeing material that is not privately owned by anyone. If I try to usurp the exclusive rights to use it for property at this time, it’s wrong to me. I could be wrong but in any case, I don’t see that simply watching the videos without copying them could be grave sin.

What if the video is an HD copy of Hunger Games? And what if millions of people also did as you and watched it for free on you-tube instead of going to the theater to watch it? You don’t think it is a sin to financially ruin the makers of that film who have invested millions into it?

 

[Marybeloved]

The fact that a government can revoke ownership does not in itself imply that there was no ownership. Government can also take your land by eminent domain. Does that mean you can’t own land, or that the land is not your property?

Government cannot take land by eminent domain without compensation.

Not necessarily. Suppose I hire a research firm to prepare a report for our exclusive use. That report is not public. But now suppose I turn around and offer that report for sale on the public market. I would be violating the agreement we had with the research company and violating their copyright.

Exactly. You would. But not the persons who happen to come across the report lying on the street and decide to read it.

What if the video is an HD copy of Hunger Games? And what if millions of people also did as you and watched it for free on you-tube instead of going to the theater to watch it? You don’t think it is a sin to financially ruin the makers of that film who have invested millions into it?

It is- very much so. But who is financially ruining them? That’s why you-tube should be held to account for taking this permission themselves and having this material on their site. That’s why persons who try to do this individually in other sites should be held to account and stopped. Stopping persons from watching it after it’s already there is another matter to me. Like stopping people from reading the report lying on the street.

 

[Marybeloved]

Also, like I said- I am yet to see anything that shows that these guys really do suffer losses (Are financially ruined). I just see it as rather than make 100 million, they make 50 million. If there was a real injury that resulted in real ruin to these guys and the Government decreed that for that reason:
1)You cannot watch movies or visit websites A,B,C
2)You cannot watch or listen to music A,B,C except on places A,B,C and for money

Then I would obey. But as I understand it, they place most restrictions mostly on those who try to use this permission, not so much emphasis on those who just happen to come across the material somewhere and see it without trying to distribute it.

 

[Cristiano]

Also, like I said- I am yet to see anything that shows that these guys really do suffer losses (Are financially ruined). I just see it as rather than make 100 million, they make 50 million. If there was a real injury that resulted in real ruin to these guys and the Government decreed that for that reason:
1)You cannot watch movies or visit websites A,B,C
2)You cannot watch or listen to music A,B,C except on places A,B,C and for money

Then I would obey. But as I understand it, they place most restrictions mostly on those who try to use this permission, not so much emphasis on those who just happen to come across the material somewhere and see it without trying to distribute it.

This is really moral relativism!

 

[Marybeloved]

This is really moral relativism!

But how? Is there a law that says I cannot see it, because it’s on you-tube? I just see it, I don’t copy and distribute it. Explain to me why it’s wrong, if there is no specific law against it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Exactly. You would.[be doing wrong] But not the persons who happen to come across the report lying on the street and decide to read it…But who is financially ruining them [the makers of the movie]? That’s why you-tube should be held to account for taking this permission themselves and having this material on their site. That’s why persons who try to do this individually in other sites should be held to account and stopped. Stopping persons from watching it after it’s already there is another matter…

The person who uploaded the movie could not ruin the makers of the movie unless he had the cooperation of millions of viewers who then watched his video instead of going to the theater. If you knew that the person uploaded the video without the right to do so then watching that video is cooperating with that person’s offense. I don’t think it is You-Tube’s responsibility to check the copyright of all its postings. It is not even practical to do so. To their credit they do take down offending material when it is brought to their attention.

Suppose you were driving down the highway and suddenly a truck races by with the police in hot pursuit. It is apparent that those in the truck are wanted by the police. And then you see a stream of hundred dollar bills flying out the back of the truck. Is it wrong to stop and pick up that money and keep it for yourself? After all, you didn’t steal it. It was just lying there in the street. Ah, but you knew, or had good reason to suspect, that it was stolen. So in keeping the money you are also guilty of the theft. So the argument that the files are just out there for the viewing is not an excuse.

 

[exnihilo]

For recording someone’s marriage? I thought it would be probably the Priest and the couple involved.

I meant the marriage ceremony. If the ceremony contained readings from a Bible that is copyrighted or performances of a copyrighted song then I believe you would be violating the law to make a recording of it. To broadcast it in any way would be a further violation.

Maybe another example would help. Suppose I enter into a handshake agreement with my neighbor. I agree to patch his leaking roof in return for some potatoes from his garden. He gives me the potatoes, but then I am lazy and never get around to patching his roof. Since the agreement was only on a handshake, he is unable to use the law to recover damages. Is what I did intrinsically wrong, or was it only wrong because it was against the law?

This example has some similarities with file sharing because when I buy the original DVD, I enter into an agreement not to use that DVD in certain unapproved ways.

I think you are right to look at this as more of a contract issue. At the same time that does not alleviate all problems because some contract terms are held to be unenforceable. An easy example is restrictive covenants. For instance there is plenty of real estate that has a clause on it limiting who the land can be sold to. Are you or where you ever obliged to honor that covenant? Where you obliged to refuse to buy the property if it had a clause you did not like if that clause was immoral? If you approached Intellectual Property the way many folks approach race relations you’d have to say there is a good chance you can make an argument that allows you to ignore the law.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Also, like I said- I am yet to see anything that shows that these guys really do suffer losses (Are financially ruined). I just see it as rather than make 100 million, they make 50 million.

The amount of the loss or the riches of the victim do not affect the morality of the action. It is wrong to steal one dollar from my poor neighbor who barely has enough to get by. It is also wrong to steal one dollar from Ford Motor Company, even though they can well afford to lose one dollar. Now I will grant you that stealing from a poor person is especially grievous. And maybe stealing from the rich is not quite so grievous. But it is still immoral. And judging the severity of an offense based on the worthiness of the victim is fraught with moral peril. It is best not to go there.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I think you are right to look at this as more of a contract issue. At the same time that does not alleviate all problems because some contract terms are held to be unenforceable. An easy example is restrictive covenants. For instance there is plenty of real estate that has a clause on it limiting who the land can be sold to. Are you or where you ever obliged to honor that covenant? Where you obliged to refuse to buy the property if it had a clause you did not like if that clause was immoral? If you approached Intellectual Property the way many folks approach race relations you’d have to say there is a good chance you can make an argument that allows you to ignore the law.

OK, go ahead and give me an example of when ignoring the law on Intellectual Property is the morally preferred thing to do.

 

[Cristiano]

But how? Is there a law that says I cannot see it, because it’s on you-tube? I just see it, I don’t copy and distribute it. Explain to me why it’s wrong, if there is no specific law against it.

First I was really referring to your comment where you state that to you the difference between right or wrong is between bankrupting someone or putting them at a loss of 50 million dollars when they still make million of dollars.

The second aspect about you watching it on youtube or not is just trying to rationalize bad behaviors. In general the law talks about distribution and reception of goods, for example we are accountable for receiving stolen goods, at best we loose what we purchased if we did not know that it was stolen property. The same principle can be applied to copyright law.
Here you clearly choose to disregard the moral aspect that comes up when someone chooses to participate into sin because he receives something that is being delivered to you in an illegitimate manner.

 

[Marybeloved]

The person who uploaded the movie could not ruin the makers of the movie unless he had the cooperation of millions of viewers who then watched his video instead of going to the theater. If you knew that the person uploaded the video without the right to do so then watching that video is cooperating with that person’s offense. I don’t think it is You-Tube’s responsibility to check the copyright of all its postings. It is not even practical to do so. To their credit they do take down offending material when it is brought to their attention.

Suppose you were driving down the highway and suddenly a truck races by with the police in hot pursuit. It is apparent that those in the truck are wanted by the police. And then you see a stream of hundred dollar bills flying out the back of the truck. Is it wrong to stop and pick up that money and keep it for yourself? After all, you didn’t steal it. It was just lying there in the street. Ah, but you knew, or had good reason to suspect, that it was stolen. So in keeping the money you are also guilty of the theft. So the argument that the files are just out there for the viewing is not an excuse.

I don’t even see what you’re talking about as having anything to do with our discussion. You’re talking about taking and keeping money that is not mine but is someone else’s property. I’m talking about reading/seeing information on the internet that is no one’s property, not copying it or reproducing it or distributing it, which is what the law forbids. Your equating it with stolen money takes us right back to square one because you think the information on the internet is property like that money is.

 

[Marybeloved]

First I was really referring to your comment where you state that to you the difference between right or wrong is between bankrupting someone or putting them at a loss of 50 million dollars when they still make million of dollars.

Then you missed the conversation I was having with LeafbyNiggle completely. He asked me a question of justice- if ruining the makers financially was fair. Well, for that question to be valid, you have to show that they really are getting financially ruined in the first place.

If IP is not private property, the Government makes the law to reward innovation and make sure that it is profitable. My comment that you were referring to is that these do get rewarded, just not as completely as they like. If they were getting financially ruined, then the point of IP Law would be lost, and their labor and innovation would not be rewarded. This harms society in the long run as it kills the initiative and incentives for creativity. My point is that this does not happen today- The money is being made just not to the extent that they would like.

The second aspect about you watching it on you-tube or not is just trying to rationalize bad behaviors. In general the law talks about distribution and reception of goods, for example we are accountable for receiving stolen goods, at best we loose what we purchased if we did not know that it was stolen property. The same principle can be applied to copyright law.

This is what it boils down to- You have to force the argument of stolen property to make this argument- But the good we are talking about is not the maker’s property! It’s not even the Government’s! Someone bought it and put it on the internet- How you can insist on the “handling stolen property” criminal law makes no sense to me, unless we say that the information itself, not the copies sold, is the property of the maker. But I don’t see how anyone can own the information itself such that using it without paying them could be stealing or handling stolen property.

Here you clearly choose to disregard the moral aspect that comes up when someone chooses to participate into sin because he receives something that is being delivered to you in an illegitimate manner.

I don’t think that aspect applies because copyright only restricts the rights of distribution and profits to the makers for a time, not the right to watch it free of charge to everybody else at this time. If you can show me any law that does the latter (make it illegal to see a movie on any cite or without paying for it) I agree that I cant, in obedience to law, not because I’m handling stolen property"- It’s no one’s property, unless I steal the actual DVDs or files.

 

[Marybeloved]

The amount of the loss or the riches of the victim do not affect the morality of the action. It is wrong to steal one dollar from my poor neighbor who barely has enough to get by. It is also wrong to steal one dollar from Ford Motor Company, even though they can well afford to lose one dollar. Now I will grant you that stealing from a poor person is especially grievous. And maybe stealing from the rich is not quite so grievous. But it is still immoral. And judging the severity of an offense based on the worthiness of the victim is fraught with moral peril. It is best not to go there.

You were the one who made it about financially ruining the makers. See below:

What if the video is an HD copy of Hunger Games? And what if millions of people also did as you and watched it for free on you-tube instead of going to the theater to watch it? You don’t think it is a sin to financially ruin the makers of that film who have invested millions into it?

That’s why I said that it’s not financially ruining them, this was your claim .

And you’re insisting on “stealing from a poor person” vs a rich person- It has nothing to do with stealing. The only way this works is if the information itself is someone’s property. I don’t see that it is- How can seeing/listening to what is no one’s property be stealing?

The Government says to us: *No one can try and make profits out of this information for this duration of time except this person (A) and those he agrees to give that right to. *But does the Government say: No one has a right to see/listen to it during this time without making sure to pay person A something first?

The first gives a right to freely use the information/idea in unrestricted ways while it denies it to everyone else. The second tries to restrict a right to just have that information that I don’t think the Government has restricted (Making use of the information in unprofitable ways without distributing it).

If I see a movie on you-tube, all I’ve done is used the information (it’s now in my mind)- It’s not even on my computer as I did not download it. Whose property is this information now in my memory? Do I then have stolen property stored in my memory?