The morality of File Sharing

[Marybeloved]

That’s the difference between us then, because to me, ideas and information are exactly like those discoveries of Everest and space and the sea- except they happen in the mind. Just because a person has gotten that “light” and seen it (the idea) before the rest of humanity, does not give them any ownership over it, and most certainly not in natural law. The idea of the wheel always existed, only no-one had seen it before the first person who saw it and then through creativity, helped everyone else to see it.

The way I see it, ideas are just the human way of perceiving reality (in our minds) through particular angles. The more narrow and inaccessible the angle of view to most people, and the more difficult it is for people to see it, the more “creative” we call it, and sometimes, even “genius” to describe just how unlikely it is for people to discover that particular idea and how special it is that that person was able to see it.

 

[Marybeloved]

Your examples are of discoveries of things that were already there - just waiting to be discovered. For such examples it is easy to demonstrate that the discoverer has very little natural law right to what he discovered. But when a piece of software is written or a movie is made there can be little doubt that something of value has been created - not merely discovered. And the creator of that work does have a natural law right to what he created. In your example of taking pictures of the sea, you have no right to sell permission for others to take pictures of the sea. But if you take a particularly good picture of the sea you do have the natural law right to say what happens to that picture, including who may make copies of it. There is some value in that picture that you put there. These rights make sense even in the absence of any government at all.

Also, if you write something on a software- you create something of value.How much of what you’ve written is really yours in reality? Would Beyonce’s “Single Ladies” exist if the genre of R&B did not, did she come up with the style of singing or dancing or formations in which she does solely by herself? Is everything in that song truly exclusively the product of Beyonce’s mind alone?(assuming she’s the writer). How many ideas and artistic creations are really creations of individuals rather than cultures?

The way I see it, ideas are just the human way of perceiving reality (in our minds) through particular angles. The more narrow and inaccessible the angle of view to most people, and the more difficult it is for people to see it, the more “creative” we call it, and sometimes, even “genius” to describe just how unlikely it is for people to discover that particular idea. Now genius must be recognized, lauded, encouraged and certainly rewarded- but there is just no ownership there, not in the natural order. People own things in natural law, not ideas or information.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Also, if you write something on a software- you create something of value.How much of what you’ve written is really yours in reality? Would Beyonce’s “Single Ladies” exist if the genre of R&B did not, did she come up with the style of singing or dancing or formations in which she does solely by herself? Is everything in that song truly exclusively the product of Beyonce’s mind alone?(assuming she’s the writer). How many ideas and artistic creations are really creations of individuals rather than cultures?

The way I see it, ideas are just the human way of perceiving reality (in our minds) through particular angles. The more narrow and inaccessible the angle of view to most people, and the more difficult it is for people to see it, the more “creative” we call it, and sometimes, even “genius” to describe just how unlikely it is for people to discover that particular idea. Now genius must be recognized, lauded, encouraged and certainly rewarded- but there is just no ownership there, not in the natural order. People own things in natural law, not ideas or information.

A movie or a software program are more than just an idea. They are a created work. Do you think Microsoft has the right by natural law to get paid for installations of Windows? Or do you think Windows is just an idea that once discovered belongs to everyone? (answer only on the basis of natural law, not man-made laws)

 

[Marybeloved]

I found this article very interesting here about IP from a Catholic perspective. I didn’t even think the church had an opinion on this, however vague.
wdmt.blogspot.com/2010/11/catholic-intellectual-property-rights.html

I discussed this before, in the post “Your Digital Rights”. While there is a legitimate case for a content producer to be paid for his labor, I believe goods (including intellectual goods) should be priced in a way that respects the consumer, not gouges him. How many people would bother to illegally copy a movie if you could buy it for a dollar, and retain the right to watch it? Or perhaps rent it for $0.50? IP law is stifling innovation and economy rather than promoting it.

So I started to consider what the Church might have to say. I don’t really have time to give this all the research it deserves, but I didn’t want to let the topic go by.In “Ethics in Internet” the Pontifical Council for Social Communications writes:It is imperative “that the gap between the beneficiaries of the new means of information and expression and those who do not have access to them…not become another intractable source of inequity and discrimination”. Ways need to be found to make the Internet accessible to less advantaged groups, either directly or at least by linking it with lower-cost traditional media. Cyberspace ought to be a resource of comprehensive information and services available without charge to all, and in a wide range of languages. Public institutions have a particular responsibility to establish and maintain sites of this kind.
As the new global economy takes shape, the Church is concerned “that the winner in this process will be humanity as a whole” and not just “a wealthy elite that controls science, technology and the planet’s resources”; this is to say that the Church desires “a globalization which will be at the service of the whole person and of all people”.
At the 48th series of meetings of WIPO the Vatican issued the following declaration (apologies for the poor automated translation):
The ration d’être of the system of intellectual property protection is the promotion of literary, scientific or artistic work and, in general, the creative for the “common good”. Therefore, the protection provides a statutory right of the author or inventor’s recognition of ownership of his work and to a certain degree of economic return. At the same time, it serves the material and cultural progress of society as a whole. According to Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights “Everyone has the right to protection of moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.” Ultimately, the protection of intellectual property recognizes the dignity of man and his work, which becomes an expression of the growth of individual personality and the common good and contributes to it.
Pope Benedict XVI writes, in his encyclical Caritas in Veritate:
On the part of rich countries there is excessive zeal for protecting knowledge through an unduly rigid assertion of the right to intellectual property, especially in the field of health care.
Some may say that with all the problems of the economy we shouldn’t make IPR a central issue. Yet it can be argued that at least some of our economic woes (if not many) are due to inequities arising from the application of improper or unjust intellectual property rights.

 

[Marybeloved]

A movie or a software program are more than just an idea. They are a created work. Do you think Microsoft has the right by natural law to get paid for installations of Windows? Or do you think Windows is just an idea that once discovered belongs to everyone? (answer only on the basis of natural law, not man-made laws)

I haven’t answered on any other basis than natural law, so I don’t get your bracketed remark there.

Now to answer, I’m not exactly sure how those programs work, but from my limited knowledge, here’s my thinking: Of course they can sell the installations, just like the movie-sellers have the right to sell the movies- As does everyone else have rights to use this information/technology in their own copies. But the law says not to, so we don’t. But what if I use the exact same technology of windows to avoid having to have microsoft take my money? According to those who support the supposed existence of IP in natural law, I infringe on microsoft. To me, I don’t, I just take their discovered technology and use it without involving them. Like making my own wheels to carry my goods.

 

[FSGRY]

LOLhttp://www.50centloseweight.com

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I haven’t answered on any other basis than natural law, so I don’t get your bracketed remark there.

Now to answer, I’m not exactly sure how those programs work, but from my limited knowledge, here’s my thinking: Of course they can sell the installations, just like the movie-sellers have the right to sell the movies- As does everyone else have rights to use this information/technology in their own copies. But the law says not to, so we don’t. But what if I use the exact same technology of windows to avoid having to have microsoft take my money? According to those who support the supposed existence of IP in natural law, I infringe on microsoft. To me, I don’t, I just take their discovered technology and use it without involving them. Like making my own wheels to carry my goods.

I am not talking about Windows-like technologies or independently developed software that happens to look and behave just like Windows. I am talking about the actual Windows software itself, copied, not reverse-engineered. Does Microsoft have a natural law right to payment for an installation of that exact software?

 

[Marybeloved]

I am not talking about Windows-like technologies or independently developed software that happens to look and behave just like Windows. I am talking about the actual Windows software itself, copied, not reverse-engineered. Does Microsoft have a natural law right to payment for an installation of that exact software?

How is that any different from what we’ve been discussing from the beginning? Asking me if they have a “right to payment” in natural law is repeating the same same question about movies- Yes- Their own copies that you buy from their sites and they download to you. But what I do with my CD/copy or installation file once I get it, that I bought, share it or copy it, is not their property. The Government just tells me I can’t do it. Perhaps I’m the one who doesn’t get why you’re singling this out- How is it different from the movies and music companies and the movies/music they sell to you directly from the internet?? They can sell their copies, I can use the ones I buy as I like. But laws exist that restrict that for the greater good, so I don’t get your point. What’s so special about Microsoft and windows in this discussion?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

How is that any different from what we’ve been discussing from the beginning? Asking me if they have a “right to payment” in natural law is repeating the same same question about movies- Yes- Their own copies that you buy from their sites and they download to you. But what I do with my CD/copy or installation file once I get it, that I bought, share it or copy it, is not their property. The Government just tells me I can’t do it. Perhaps I’m the one who doesn’t get why you’re singling this out- How is it different from the movies and music companies and the movies/music they sell to you directly from the internet?? They can sell their copies, I can use the ones I buy as I like. But laws exist that restrict that for the greater good, so I don’t get your point. What’s so special about Microsoft and windows in this discussion?

So you are saying there is no natural law reason why you can’t buy one copy of Windows and then sell it to others? Keep in mind that when you bought that one copy of Windows you had to agree to their terms of use which prohibits you from selling copies of it. (Suppose I lived in a country with no laws about this issue.)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So you are saying there is no natural law reason why you can’t buy one copy of Windows and then sell it to others? Keep in mind that when you bought that one copy of Windows you had to agree to their terms of use which prohibits you from selling copies of it.(Suppose I lived in a country with no laws about this issue.)

My mistake. I meant to edit the previous posting and instead I replied to it.

 

[Marybeloved]

So you are saying there is no natural law reason why you can’t buy one copy of Windows and then sell it to others? Keep in mind that when you bought that one copy of Windows you had to agree to their terms of use which prohibits you from selling copies of it. (Suppose I lived in a country with no laws about this issue.)

One copy cannot be sold to many. If I had to sell it to others, I would also have to make many copies and invest in a way that others would even be bothered to buy it in the first place (because they could just get make their own copies from others like I did- why buy mine at all?) What the Government does is to stop anyone from making their own copies, so that those who want the technology have to get it from Microsoft, least for some time, and then Microsoft will not have its efforts wasted- Which is good and just because legitimate human work must be rewarded and innovation preserved. Not because Microsoft has a natural right to payment from anyone who uses the technology, idea, information itself, but because they become the only source of the product sought for to those who want it.

Similarly I ask you. After the end of the copyright life, say the 70 years is up. Or say like with the Bible or the music set-pieces, or other old works in public domain. Is there anything in natural law prohibiting me from making my own copies of these works or recording it in CDs and selling them? Others don’t have to buy mine just because I’m selling them - They could easily make their own copies if they wanted. But those who want to buy it from me can do so. What I’m saying is that this is the true reality from the beginning, not just after a certain arbitrary number of years. But it is detrimental to society in that it may lead to the death of creativity or slow it down considerably, so the government temporarily stops everyone from doing this and creates room for rewards/profits/incentives to the innovators/creators for a time.

I could see a case in moral law from laziness/greed in selling without putting in effort (benefiting without putting any real (name removed by moderator)ut, labor, creativity in it) but similarly, I don’t see a case from ownership by creators or from exclusive rights in nature, nor do I see any wrong in simply distributing the work free of charge or making free use of it without profit.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

One copy cannot be sold to many. If I had to sell it to others, I would also have to make many copies and invest in a way that others would even buy it in the first place (because they could just get make their own copies from others like I did- why buy mine at all?)

It costs you only 50 cents to make a CD or DVD copy of Windows. Then you could sell those disks for $50 because Microsoft is charging $150. So that is why people would buy from you. But that does not answer the question of whether you think it is immoral to sell such copies in a country with no copyright law.

Since I suspect your answer is going to be “no”, then a follow-on question would be which of the following laborers do you think have a natural law right to their wages:

grape picker
publicist
truck driver
software developer
letter carrier
photographer
cashier

Similarly I ask you. After the end of the copyright life, say the 70 years is up. Or say like with the Bible or the music set-pieces, or other old works in public domain. Is there anything in natural law prohibiting me from making my own copies of these works and selling them? Or recording it in CDs and selling them? Others don’t have to buy mine just because I’m selling them - They could easily make their own copies if they wanted. But those who want to buy it from me can buy can do so. What I’m saying is that this is the true reality from the beginning, not just after a certain arbitrary number of years. But it is detrimental to society in that it may lead to the death of creativity or slow it down considerably, so the government temporarily stops everyone from doing this and creates room for rewards/profits/incentives to the innovators/creators for a time.

In answer to your question, no, natural law does not support copyright law. But I have not been basing my argument on copyright law.

 

[Marybeloved]

It costs you only 50 cents to make a CD or DVD copy of Windows. Then you could sell those disks for $50 because Microsoft is charging $150. So that is why people would buy from you. But that does not answer the question of whether you think it is immoral to sell such copies in a country with no copyright law.

Since I suspect your answer is going to be “no”, then a follow-on question would be which of the following laborers do you think have a natural law right to their wages:

grape picker
publicist
truck driver
software developer
letter carrier
photographer
cashier

In answer to your question, no, natural law does not support copyright law. But I have not been basing my argument on copyright law.

I think I edited my last post while you were crafting this post, so you may want to look at it again before I respond? Especially the last paragraph as I believe it answers this post directly in terms of "just wages".

 

[Marybeloved]

What you are talking about is human work- Making a living from our work. This is one of the*** “just motivations”*** I’ve spoken about earlier, several times actually, for the Government to restrict the public rights to free use of ideas and information and knowledge for a time- this is what makes IP Law, to some extent (not fully, it has its many weaknesses) a just law that we have to obey as Catholics. There’s no “natural right” for these laborers to exclusive use of these ideas/information. There’s only a natural right to be able to earn a living from legitimate work- which the Government tries to solve through this construct called IP. There is no way that my seeing a movie on you-tube interferes with these rights to a wage. They do get their wages, they just would like to earn money in ever greater extents as if they actually owned the information itself- They don’t. In my country, photographers take pictures and sell them everywhere, newspapers, to people, magazines, businesses etc- How are they not earning their wages? Do they have to earn hundreds of millions for us to count it as "just wages"?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What you are talking about is human work- Making a living from our work. This is one of the*** “just motivations”*** I’ve spoken about earlier, several times actually, for the Government to restrict the public rights to free use of ideas and information and knowledge for a time- this is what makes IP Law, to some extent (not fully, it has its many weaknesses) a just law that we have to obey as Catholics. There’s no “natural right” for these laborers to exclusive use of these ideas/information. There’s only a natural right to be able to earn a living from legitimate work- which the Government tries to solve through this construct called IP. There is no way that my seeing a movie on you-tube interferes with these rights to a wage. They do get their wages, they just would like to earn money in ever greater extents as if they actually owned the information itself- They don’t. In my country, photographers take pictures and sell them everywhere, newspapers, to people, magazines, businesses etc- How are they not earning their wages? Do they have to earn hundreds of millions for us to count it as "just wages"?

They are earning their wages because people do, in fact, obey IP laws. If only a few people disregard IP rights then not much harm is done. If more people disregard those rights, then more harm is done. In the extreme case, if everyone disregarded IP rights then so much harm is done that those who create IP would not earn a just wage at all. So the most you can claim is that your watching a bootlegged copy of a movie does only a little bit of harm. But ethically that is not much of a defense. It is something like littering. If you throw one candy wrapper out the window not much harm is done. But if everyone does it a huge mess is created, and all the throwers of individual candy wrappers share in that guilt.

So let me ask you a little different question. Is it moral to sneak into a movie theater and watch a movie for free? Here is an argument based on your reasoning that says that it is. You are not actually taking anyone’s property. You are just watching something. If the theater is not crowed than your presence does not prevent anyone else from enjoying the show. Suppose you also don’t bring any snacks that might create a mess, so you are not causing the theater owners any additional clean-up costs. Other than man-made laws there is no natural law reason why such an action would be immoral.

 

[Marybeloved]

So let me ask you a little different question. Is it moral to sneak into a movie theater and watch a movie for free? Here is an argument based on your reasoning that says that it is. You are not actually taking anyone’s property. You are just watching something. If the theater is not crowed than your presence does not prevent anyone else from enjoying the show. Suppose you also don’t bring any snacks that might create a mess, so you are not causing the theater owners any additional clean-up costs. Other than man-made laws there is no natural law reason why such an action would be immoral.

The analogy is wrong. How is it like sneaking into a movie theatre? More like watching it in a movie theatre hall that is screening a movie that it has not paid for full rights for, which it’s not your duty to investigate if they have/not. Or watching a free showing of a movie in a bar you’re visiting that has not purchased the full rights to show the movie. Sneaking into a movie hall would be more like hacking into a website without paying the fees and then watching/downloading stuff without paying. I already said earlier that this was theft because this particular copy I’m watching was being sold and I haven’t bought/paid to see it. Not talking about “sneaking” into any website. :nope: How can you sneak into you-tube?

 

[Marybeloved]

They are earning their wages because people do, in fact, obey IP laws. If only a few people disregard IP rights then not much harm is done. If more people disregard those rights, then more harm is done. In the extreme case, if everyone disregarded IP rights then so much harm is done that those who create IP would not earn a just wage at all. So the most you can claim is that your watching a bootlegged copy of a movie does only a little bit of harm. But ethically that is not much of a defense. It is something like littering. If you throw one candy wrapper out the window not much harm is done. But if everyone does it a huge mess is created, and all the throwers of individual candy wrappers share in that guilt.

Yes, it would be a huge mess. And the Government is stopping them so that this “huge mess” has not yet occurred and caused them their wages. Still not getting the part where those who just enjoy a free movie that they have found showing somewhere and have not stolen it are at fault.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Yes, it would be a huge mess. And the Government is stopping them so that this “huge mess” has not yet occurred and caused them their wages. Still not getting the part where those who just enjoy a free movie that they have found showing somewhere and have not stolen it are at fault.

They are at fault because if everyone did it then no one would pay to see it, and the people that made the movie will be ruined. Of course only a few people do it so the makers of the movie are not ruined. So it depends on how many people watch it for free. Just like it depends on how many people throw away papers on the road. If only a few people do it then the road still looks OK. But if everyone does it then you have great harm.

 

[Marybeloved]

They are at fault because if everyone did it then no one would pay to see it, and the people that made the movie will be ruined. Of course only a few people do it so the makers of the movie are not ruined. So it depends on how many people watch it for free. Just like it depends on how many people throw away papers on the road. If only a few people do it then the road still looks OK. But if everyone does it then you have great harm.

I get that, sure. But littering is an objective wrong, watching a movie for free is not. If you litter, even if it’s only you, you’re still dirtying the shared space/environment- even if no-else does it. That’s not the case with what I’m talking about. Watching a movie that is showing somewhere without stealing it is not wrong. If I was the bar owner, and I said I was the only one doing it, you could say to me that I was still dis-obeying the Law. and that if all bar-owners did it, the industry would suffer. But how could you say that to those in the bar just looking at the TV screen? The reason that not everyone is doing it is the IP law, which is why the law exists- But the IP law is not directed at those in the bar seats, it’s directed at the bar owners/staff. It’s not about stopping people watching the movies for free- this is a more fundamental violation. It’s about stopping them from showing it to others without permission.

 

[edwest2]

That’s the difference between us then, because to me, ideas and information are exactly like those discoveries of Everest and space and the sea- except they happen in the mind. Just because a person has gotten that “light” and seen it (the idea) before the rest of humanity, does not give them any ownership over it, and most certainly not in natural law. The idea of the wheel always existed, only no-one had seen it before the first person who saw it and then through creativity, helped everyone else to see it.

You can have your picture that you have taken, it’s yours. But how can you own the image captured apart from your picture? Who is to say that once you’ve sold it, you get to control how many people see it and how? If you keep it to yourself, nothing will ever happen to it. But if you share it, how can you try to control how people see it? That is like asserting ownership over the particular view of the sea at that moment in which you got to see it and captured it. But that “window” through which you saw the sea is not your property.

All I see here are attempts to split hairs. There are professional photographers who can take photographs of anything. How much does an original Ansel Adams nature photograph cost? Do you have the right to reproduce it if he or his heirs say you cannot?

As a professional who works in the media, you pay a model, or you choose a subject. If it’s a human being, he or she has to sign a release, and sometimes, depending on who the model is, a “release” becomes a complicated contract. Examples:

To be published in US magazines only.
To be used on US billboards only.
To be modified at the discretion of the photographer.
To be sold and resold to individual publications and all the model gets is a one-time fee, and the photographer gets all rights to use the images in any way he sees fit.
Or the model is paid each the time the photo is purchased by a specific publication and can be used only a limited number of times, or they need to pay more money.

A “little bit of stealing” is still stealing. And the myth persists that you can copy a DVD even if you’re not making any money off it.

Read the FBI Warning:

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

Peace,
Ed