The morality of File Sharing

[Marybeloved]

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

Who asked you for an explanation of current copyright law? Do you even understand the real topic in discussion here? Perhaps you should understand it first because you’ve done zero here. We are not talking about what is legal or not. We are talking about what foundations exist in natural moral law to make it morally just or not.

And who said that it was legal to make a copy as per current Law? The question has been if, coming upon a copy that another has either made illegally or shared illegally without permission, would it be wrong to simply use it without copying or distributing it?-In this case, would it be wrong to simply look at the photograph that someone else copied from the original?

 

[Marybeloved]

@Edwest,

If for example someone buys the pictures and then makes his own copies available to see (without permission) somewhere, or copies made from those that he bought. Is that experience of just looking at the picture without retaining any tangible copy of it, and walking away with no actual picture except in my mind- is it wrong? That’s what we are discussing.

 

[edwest2]

Who asked you for an explanation of current copyright law? Do you even understand the real topic in discussion here? Perhaps you should understand it first because you’ve done zero here. We are not talking about what is legal or not. We are talking about what foundations exist in natural moral law to make it morally just or not.

And who said that it was legal to make a copy as per current Law? The question has been if, coming upon a copy that another has either made illegally or shared illegally without permission, would it be wrong to simply use it without copying or distributing it?-In this case, would it be wrong to simply look at the photograph that someone else copied from the original?

I do understand. The topic is the Morality of File Sharing. How do you use something “without copying or distributing it”? We should try to determine if what we are looking at was acquired illegally. Looking at photographs from an unknown source involves adding an unnecessary grey area. Photographs are controlled by the person who took them. He or she can “share” them as he or she desires. The subject is the Morality of File Sharing these photos. The natural moral law demands we understand and respect the wishes of our neighbor, which includes people we have never met.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Marybeloved]

I do understand. The topic is the Morality of File Sharing.*** How do you use something “without copying or distributing it”***? We should try to determine if what we are looking at was acquired illegally. Looking at photographs from an unknown source involves adding an unnecessary grey area. Photographs are controlled by the person who took them. He or she can “share” them as he or she desires. The subject is the Morality of File Sharing these photos. The natural moral law demands we understand and respect the wishes of our neighbor, which includes people we have never met.

Peace,
Ed

Are you for real? You can watch, listen to or look at a movie, song or photograph without copying or distributing it! That’s how you can “use something without copying or distributing it”, And do you mean you always investigate the source of photos on the net before looking at them? How exactly do you do that? I’d like to know.

*The natural moral law demands we understand and respect **the wishes ***of our neighbor, which includes people we have never met.

Really? This is one principle I’ve never heard. Now, if you’d said understand and respect “the rights” of our neighbor, I’d understand the principle totally- But of course you would then have to show these rights in natural law from reasoned argumentation, which is what we’ve been discussing/debating all along. Not just “declare them” as if that alone proved anything.

Peace.

 

[edwest2]

“File sharing” is the topic, not, we’re all going over to Jim’s place to watch a DVD he just bought.

File sharing only occurs on computers. Names like Pirate Bay, Mega-Uploader, and other “file sharing” sites can and do deprive others their due, in terms of real damages, by offering something that should be paid for.

Difference:

Netflix offers a movie streamed to your computer, for money.
A File Sharing site offers the same movie streamed to your computer for nothing.

It is immoral to take what is not yours without the compensation asked for.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Marybeloved]

“File sharing” is the topic, not, we’re all going over to Jim’s place to watch a DVD he just bought.

File sharing only occurs on computers. Names like Pirate Bay, Mega-Uploader, and other “file sharing” sites can and do deprive others their due, in terms of real damages, by offering something that should be paid for.

Difference:

Netflix offers a movie streamed to your computer, for money.
A File Sharing site offers the same movie streamed to your computer for nothing.

It is immoral to take what is not yours without the compensation asked for.

ED,

That’s a nice distinction there that you make- without explaining the reason for the distinction AT ALL in morality. Why should sharing something in cyberspace be wrong if doing the same thing physically is not? What’s the natural law moral principle that says that if you buy a movie you cannot share it with others on the internet but you can share it with others physically- going to Jim’s place? What’s the natural law moral principle that says you can use a movie that you physically get from another without paying but you cannot use a movie that you get from another on the internet? Why is it “taking what is not yours without compensation” on the internet if it’s not "taking what is not yours"physically? Please provide your reasoning, not just offer unsupported declarations like you’ve been doing so far.

Thanks

 

[exnihilo]

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.

This would be trespassing. No need to worry about IP in this scenario.

Difference:

Netflix offers a movie streamed to your computer, for money.
A File Sharing site offers the same movie streamed to your computer for nothing.

It is immoral to take what is not yours without the compensation asked for.

So are libraries immoral? The work the same as file sharing. They allow you to take what is not yours without the compensation asked for. If we really want to hold the IP line then we’d have to make libraries illegal. If the government would impose hundred thousand dollar penalties for libraries then they’d at least be consistent and would have some sort of claim to legitimacy when going against file sharing.

 

[thewanderer]

This would be trespassing. No need to worry about IP in this scenario.

So are libraries immoral? The work the same as file sharing. They allow you to take what is not yours without the compensation asked for. If we really want to hold the IP line then we’d have to make libraries illegal. If the government would impose hundred thousand dollar penalties for libraries then they’d at least be consistent and would have some sort of claim to legitimacy when going against file sharing.

That depends on what you mean by ‘holding the IP line’. If you think it is man-made legislation for the sake of encouraging creativity etc then of course there is no need to force libraries to shut down, however, if you think it’s something that is wrong in and of itself, then yes, it would be a moral obligation to shut them all down.

 

[exnihilo]

That depends on what you mean by ‘holding the IP line’. If you think it is man-made legislation for the sake of encouraging creativity etc then of course there is no need to force libraries to shut down, however, if you think it’s something that is wrong in and of itself, then yes, it would be a moral obligation to shut them all down.

I dont understand your reasoning. IP is man made legislation. The question before us is what basis it has in morality. Regardless of that basis libraries are sharing copyrighted material just the same as file sharing services. If one is good the other is good. If one is bad the other is bad. This is regardless of the moral basis. For the sake of reason alone we must hold to this equivalence.

 

[thewanderer]

I dont understand your reasoning. IP is man made legislation. The question before us is what basis it has in morality. Regardless of that basis libraries are sharing copyrighted material just the same as file sharing services. If one is good the other is good. If one is bad the other is bad. This is regardless of the moral basis. For the sake of reason alone we must hold to this equivalence.

I guess what I was thinking is that if the IP laws aren’t based off of filesharing etc being intrinsically wrong, but rather for the sake of encouraging creativity, then the state can decide to what extent it wants to encourage it. They can decide that allowing libraries to continue does not do too much damage to the encouragement they are trying to give through the IP laws and so can determine that it is fine for libraries even while they say that it isn’t for other people or organizations. It doesn’t have to be some standard that every person and organization is held up to the way it would have to be if there were something intrinsically wrong wih filesharing. I hope that is clearer!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So are libraries immoral? The work the same as file sharing. They allow you to take what is not yours without the compensation asked for. If we really want to hold the IP line then we’d have to make libraries illegal. If the government would impose hundred thousand dollar penalties for libraries then they’d at least be consistent and would have some sort of claim to legitimacy when going against file sharing.

Ask any librarian to explain to you the fees that libraries pay for copyrighted material. They do pay.

 

[verum_pirata]

DAFUQ?



youtube.com/watch?v=zv3d7y5i7Uc

 

[edwest2]

This would be trespassing. No need to worry about IP in this scenario.

So are libraries immoral? The work the same as file sharing. They allow you to take what is not yours without the compensation asked for. If we really want to hold the IP line then we’d have to make libraries illegal. If the government would impose hundred thousand dollar penalties for libraries then they’d at least be consistent and would have some sort of claim to legitimacy when going against file sharing.

That is silly. The libraries buy the books and publishers know they will be read by others. The books have to be returned and there is a fine imposed if they are not. The Library does not make hundreds or thousands of copies of the books available online for nothing. That is called illegal reproduction and distribution.

The governments of all countries are going after piracy of copyrighted material online. The laws will get tougher.

wired.com/threatlevel/2011/10/united-states-signs-acta/

securitymanagement.com/article/intellectual-property-piracy-harms-global-economy-005827

fightonlinetheft.com/

Peace,
Ed

 

[ivebeenshown]

Why should sharing something in cyberspace be wrong if doing the same thing physically is not?

Music, film, and software are products of labor. When you purchase that product, it is your right to share that instance of that product with others. ‘File sharing’, as you call it, is not truly sharing, it is copying. You are not sharing one and the same instance of that product, you are participating in the generation of new instances of that product, a right which does not belong to you.

 

[thewanderer]

Music, film, and software are products of labor. When you purchase that product, it is your right to share that instance of that product with others. ‘File sharing’, as you call it, is not truly sharing, it is copying. You are not sharing one and the same instance of that product, you are participating in the generation of new instances of that product, a right which does not belong to you.

Its not quite as clear cut as that though. You are allowed to make copies for yourself. You can rip your own CD’s and DVD’s to your computer. Which makes things all the more complicated. Of course its fine to lend your CD out to a friend. Is it ok to lend out your CD to a friend if you still have the music on the CD because its on your computer?

It is this grey area about sharing with friends and family that really makes copyright laws diffiicult for some people to accept as natural.

Also, I think MaryBeloved was talking about a case where the files were not copied but were instead viewed online. In which case there would be no replication.

 

[JDFatalist]

If you’re violating copyright law then it’s stealing. Even if it’s not available in stores or for legitimate download, it is still piracy and thus is still most likely a grave matter in the eyes of our Lord.

Nothing wrong with pirating something that does not steal from the people who make, sell, and distribute the product.

If something is out of print and not on sale anymore, that information is harmless to get off the internet, I see no harm in this.

 

[thewanderer]

I’'m curious, because this is really closely connected to the question of whether filesharing is intrinsically wrong, does anyone believe that people can naturally privately own ideas? I don’t see how that is possible because an idea is a common good, not a private one. That is part of the reason why I don’t think filesharing is intrinsically wrong, but that there are good reasons for making laws about it. Is anybody of the opinion that they can be privately owned? and if so, why?

 

[ivebeenshown]

Its not quite as clear cut as that though. You are allowed to make copies for yourself. You can rip your own CD’s and DVD’s to your computer. Which makes things all the more complicated. Of course its fine to lend your CD out to a friend. Is it ok to lend out your CD to a friend if you still have the music on the CD because its on your computer?

It is this grey area about sharing with friends and family that really makes copyright laws diffiicult for some people to accept as natural.

Also, I think MaryBeloved was talking about a case where the files were not copied but were instead viewed online. In which case there would be no replication.

Good points! I will refrain from it because I still feel that it is wrong, but ultimately, I think it would be wonderful for the Church to release an official document – of course, it is of low priority compared to other crises we face today.

 

[exnihilo]

That is silly. The libraries buy the books and publishers know they will be read by others. The books have to be returned and there is a fine imposed if they are not. The Library does not make hundreds or thousands of copies of the books available online for nothing. That is called illegal reproduction and distribution.

The publishers of music also know it will be shared. So I’m not sure what relevance that has to either the morality or the legality. That sharing will occur has no bearing on the law or morality.

That a library may impose a fine is irrelevant. That money goes to the library, not the producer of the work. That fine is chosen by the library, not the publisher.

The reason the library is relevant is because the claim of IP is that you buy a license to the IP. If you buy a book you do buy the physical book, the paper, which you own. But you only buy a license to the content, the words. If you allow someone else to view that same content they are doing so without themselves having paid the license fee. An organization whose sole purpose is to share the contents of copyrighted material is violating the principle of IP.

Its not quite as clear cut as that though. You are allowed to make copies for yourself. You can rip your own CD’s and DVD’s to your computer.

Can you rip copies?

U.S. copyright law (Title 17 of the United States Code) generally says that making a copy of an original work, if conducted without the consent of the copyright owner, is infringement. The law makes no explicit grant or denial of a right to make a “personal use” copy of another’s copyrighted content on one’s own digital media and devices. For example, space shifting, by making a copy of a personally-owned audio CD for transfer to an MP3 player for that person’s personal use, is not explicitly allowed or forbidden.

Existing copyright statutes may apply to specific acts of personal copying, as determined in cases in the civil or criminal court systems, building up a body of case law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripping#United_States

Based on my understanding the statutes say nothing about you having a right to an archive copy. There is case law, which is based on people being sued for making archival copies, where a right to make those copies has been established. But if you read the actual laws you’ll find no such right. Big corporations have fought against allowing you to make backup copies. Thankfully they lost. But the fair thing only occurred because of the courts, not because of our legislators.

Of course its fine to lend your CD out to a friend. Is it ok to lend out your CD to a friend if you still have the music on the CD because its on your computer?

Is it fine to lend a CD? What has your license bought you?

Regarding lending it out I think this would be problematic if you made an archival copy. If you made a copy and at the same time give the CD to someone else you are probably in violation of the law.

The US copyright office says regarding computer software (it should be the same for music) that you can make a copy only if:

any copy made for archival purposes is either destroyed, or transferred with the original copy, once the original copy is sold, given away, or otherwise transferred.

I think it likely you would have to destroy your archive when you transfer the original to someone else even for a moment.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The publishers of music also know it will be shared. So I’m not sure what relevance that has to either the morality or the legality. That sharing will occur has no bearing on the law or morality.

Knowing that something will be shared is not the same thing as agreeing to let that item be shared. It is hard to draw a parallel with books because they are shared by only one person at a time, whereas file sharing actually provides opportunities for many people to use the file at once. A better parallel might be the on-line databases and e-books that libraries provide. But even in this case you will see that the libraries pay the suppliers according to an agreement that takes into account how many simultaneous uses or total uses there might be per month. The libraries do not share these things like illegal file sharing does. So don’t look to the libraries to support the morality of file sharing. They don’t do it.

That a library may impose a fine is irrelevant. That money goes to the library, not the producer of the work.

I agree. But it still doesn’t matter. The libraries are not life file sharing because they pay for what they distribute according to terms that the suppliers agree to.

The reason the library is relevant is because the claim of IP is that you buy a license to the IP. If you buy a book you do buy the physical book, the paper, which you own. But you only buy a license to the content, the words. If you allow someone else to view that same content they are doing so without themselves having paid the license fee. An organization whose sole purpose is to share the contents of copyrighted material is violating the principle of IP.

Libraries do not violate the principle of IP. When you buy a book there is no license restriction that says you can’t allow someone else to see that book. You are taking a too simplistic one size fits all view of IP principles.