The morality of File Sharing

[exnihilo]

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 library is doing the same thing file sharing is doing only it is doing it in a different media. The speed or exclusivity of the violation of copyright should not matter. If this were so then file sharing would not be wrong always and in all circumstance. Only sharing to more than one person at one time would be.

If someone built a service that allowed only one person at a time to view one other person’s movie or listen to their song I doubt either the entertainment or the courts would find it was just like the libraries they let violated IP.

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.

Are you saying that libraries pay a fee to copyright holders to share print books?

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.

Copyright contains the concept of a limited license to something. So you are getting a limited license when you purchase a book. The license restricts the use of the protected material. If you can share the protected material in a book then it seems like sharing the protected material in a CD should be no different. I dont think I’m taking a simplistic approach. I think I’m pointing out the ridiculousness of the IP concept and how people willingly participate and encourage violating the principles where a custom of sharing existed before the advent of modern IP and technology.

 

[edwest2]

I understand IP law. I’ve been working for over 20 years for a company that has some of the best IP attorneys in the country. And we have been involved in legal actions where our IPs have been infringed, i.e., copied and used without permission.

On the internet, thieves have taken our books and scanned them from cover to cover. Now, that was obviously done without our permission. And permission is all you need. Obviously, there are people who do not want to ask, because the answers would include:

1. You can put our books on your file sharing site and pay us a licensing fee based on each copy downloaded. And you must provide proof of each download. Some record that we can rely on as true and accurate.
2. No, you cannot put our books on your file sharing site because we choose not to allow it.

I’d like to point out that any site that provides downloads of movies, books and music for money, must keep accurate records of all the money they make and, if they are audited by the IRS, be able to prove to the IRS that one song was downloaded 20,000 times during the tax year in question and another song was downloaded one million times, etc. If they cannot provide these records, there will be legal and financial repercussions.

All money made from downloads for money is taxable, whether you’re Apple or Bob’s Online Music Store and selling music only by independent artists.

The FBI gets this.

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

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

Depends on what it is. For instance, sheet music after a certain number of years is free to copy. As of a few years ago, it was something like anything prior to 1923. That music (the pages, not performances) is in the public domain. I have no problems downloading that for my personal use. I don’t know about copyright law and public domain for computer programs too much. I know that sometimes something is referred to as abandonware because the company has stopped anything to do with it, but I’m not sure if that means they gave up the copyright or not. I haven’t done the research for that.

The only way I would ever justify downloading something that one should pay for would be solely for testing purposes. For instance, some programs will cost hundreds, if not thousands of dollars, and I know of some that don’t even provide demos. Now, for a company (because it’s usually companies that use these programs) it’s nothing to purchase it because they know they’ll need it and so on. For individual hobbyists, it’s a good thing to try a product before making such a large purchase. So in that case, I could see a person downloading, trying something out, then removing the program or purchasing it. Using it that way, the company that made the program actually gains a potentially buyer - somebody who wouldn’t even think about making such a purchase without the opportunity to try the product first. Is that a usual situation? I doubt it. Of course, the situation could be rectified entirely by just offering a demo version.

The site GOG (good old games) has the philosophy that making everything easier to access actually benefits the producer more than all the fancy security measures that so many companies are using and will also prevent piracy. I agree with that because currently it’s not just greedy people who download stuff just because it’s free, but also people who want to avoid a hassle, and also people who are afraid of the privacy-invading devices used by some companies. I think that these companies actually shoot themselves in the foot.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

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?

Do you mean books, music, what? You think that we all own someone’s personal performance of a musical piece? How is that possible? My son writes music, no one else helps him write it, it comes from his brain, it is HIS music! If I ever write a book, those words were MY choice, I did the writing, the book is MY property! Ideas/words/music/art is not common property!

I hope I am just not understanding you correctly, and you really don’t mean that no one owns their own creations or ideas!

Why does the format change mean that file-sharing is not theft? If I published a book, and someone else bought one copy, scanned it into a computer, printed hundreds of the counterfeit book, and sold them, that would be theft.

Speaking of counterfeit, why can’t I “file-share” $20 bills? I mean, no one owns the idea of money, right??

 

[edwest2]

Depends on what it is. For instance, sheet music after a certain number of years is free to copy. As of a few years ago, it was something like anything prior to 1923. That music (the pages, not performances) is in the public domain. I have no problems downloading that for my personal use. I don’t know about copyright law and public domain for computer programs too much. I know that sometimes something is referred to as abandonware because the company has stopped anything to do with it, but I’m not sure if that means they gave up the copyright or not. I haven’t done the research for that.

The only way I would ever justify downloading something that one should pay for would be solely for testing purposes. For instance, some programs will cost hundreds, if not thousands of dollars, and I know of some that don’t even provide demos. Now, for a company (because it’s usually companies that use these programs) it’s nothing to purchase it because they know they’ll need it and so on. For individual hobbyists, it’s a good thing to try a product before making such a large purchase. So in that case, I could see a person downloading, trying something out, then removing the program or purchasing it. Using it that way, the company that made the program actually gains a potentially buyer - somebody who wouldn’t even think about making such a purchase without the opportunity to try the product first. Is that a usual situation? I doubt it. Of course, the situation could be rectified entirely by just offering a demo version.

The site GOG (good old games) has the philosophy that making everything easier to access actually benefits the producer more than all the fancy security measures that so many companies are using and will also prevent piracy. I agree with that because currently it’s not just greedy people who download stuff just because it’s free, but also people who want to avoid a hassle, and also people who are afraid of the privacy-invading devices used by some companies. I think that these companies actually shoot themselves in the foot.

A demo version. Yes, just contact the company and say, "Hi. I really think your product is what I want but I would really like to see a demo version of the product first since I don’t want to buy something so expensive without seeing a demo. A lot of sites do this. And if the device/software is really useful, I’m sure you could search for user-experience reports online before buying it.

This isn’t about greed, it’s about anarchy. Who pays for the servers, the bandwidth and so on for some pirate site in Uzbekistan?

Can you define “a hassle”?

Can you define “privacy-invading devices”?

Do you know that where you go on the internet can be tracked right now?

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

A demo version. Yes, just contact the company and say, "Hi. I really think your product is what I want but I would really like to see a demo version of the product first since I don’t want to buy something so expensive without seeing a demo. A lot of sites do this. And if the device/software is really useful, I’m sure you could search for user-experience reports online before buying it.

This isn’t about greed, it’s about anarchy. Who pays for the servers, the bandwidth and so on for some pirate site in Uzbekistan?

Can you define “a hassle”?

Can you define “privacy-invading devices”?

Do you know that where you go on the internet can be tracked right now?

Peace,
Ed

I’m speaking by arguments I’ve heard from other people, including legal companies that prefer not to use extra anti-piracy devices. I’m aware that we can be tracked anywhere and everywhere on the internet, but it doesn’t change other people’s behavior.

 

[exnihilo]

Do you mean books, music, what? You think that we all own someone’s personal performance of a musical piece? How is that possible?

Good question. How is that possible? And yet all of us owning someone’s personal performance is just what copyright law establishes. After a length of time the public becomes the owner of all IP.

My son writes music, no one else helps him write it, it comes from his brain, it is HIS music! If I ever write a book, those words were MY choice, I did the writing, the book is MY property! Ideas/words/music/art is not common property!

If I have the same idea as you but you have it one millisecond earlier you should own that idea for 120 years? That seems a bit unfair.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

A library is doing the same thing file sharing is doing only it is doing it in a different media. The speed or exclusivity of the violation of copyright should not matter. If this were so then file sharing would not be wrong always and in all circumstance. Only sharing to more than one person at one time would be.

The libraries do not violate copyright. They do what they do with the full permission of the copyright holders. File sharing ignores the terms under which the original material was released. File sharing is not wrong always and in all circumstances. A lot of files (software, music, etc) have been put into the public domain by the full assent of those with the right to do so - generally those who produced that material. Sharing those files on a file sharing service is just fine. To decide if file sharing is wrong in a specific instance you have to look at the circumstances that made this file available. There is no reason why all file sharing should be judged identically.

Are you saying that libraries pay a fee to copyright holders to share print books?

In the case of books, the royalties to the author were paid at the time the book was sold for the first time. The terms of that sale were non-restrictive as far as sharing that one copy. The author and the publisher agreed to this when they published. So the author has no reason to feel cheated when he sees his book circulate in a library. Maybe he would like it better if everybody bought their own copy, but he has no right to insist on that because the terms of publishing that he agreed to already included the right for this book to pass from one person to another indefinitely. So when libraries buy new books, part of the price they pay is the royalties to the author under the terms that the author agreed to.

In the case of software, for example, the terms of the sale are different. The sale is made under a license agreement that generally excludes sharing copies of that software with others. When a copy of some software gets shared in violation of this agreement, then something happens that is not like what libraries do. The agreement between buyer and seller has been broken. Libraries do not engage is this kind of behavior.

Copyright contains the concept of a limited license to something. So you are getting a limited license when you purchase a book. The license restricts the use of the protected material. If you can share the protected material in a book then it seems like sharing the protected material in a CD should be no different.

If you were to share a CD just like you share a book, then there would be no violation. You give your friend a CD. He listens to it for a few weeks, then he gives it back to you. No problem. But when you make a copy of a CD so you both have it, then that is like making a photocopy of an entire book and giving that to someone. And that is a violation. And libraries do not do that either (unless the author specifically allows it.)

I dont think I’m taking a simplistic approach. I think I’m pointing out the ridiculousness of the IP concept and how people willingly participate and encourage violating the principles where a custom of sharing existed before the advent of modern IP and technology.

I don’t know what violations you are talking about. Are you still implying that libraries violate IP rights? If so, you have not proven it. Nor have you shown that the IP concept is ridiculous.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If I have the same idea as you but you have it one millisecond earlier you should own that idea for 120 years? That seems a bit unfair.

Don’t confuse ideas with copyright. No one is claiming there is IP rights associated with an idea. You can’t get a patent or a copyright on an idea.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Good question. How is that possible? And yet all of us owning someone’s personal performance is just what copyright law establishes. After a length of time the public becomes the owner of all IP.

If I have the same idea as you but you have it one millisecond earlier you should own that idea for 120 years? That seems a bit unfair.

Unfair! Unfair! I am so sick of hearing “unfair!” Is it fair that I have an autoimmune disease and you don’t? Is it fair that your dog is bigger than mine is? Is it fair that my car is blue and yours is black? WHO CARES IF ANYTHING IS FAIR? Life isn’t fair!

:banghead::coolinoff: Sorry for the rant, that’s just a huge pet peeve of mine.

Whoever gets that idea into the marketplace first wins. Look at Steve Jobs for example. He just managed to push hard enough to make Apple happen. Wasn’t that he was the smartest guy in the pack, Wosniak may have been more intelligent. It was that he had a vision and the determination to make it happen.

I think ideas happen in many minds at about the same time, “nothing new under the sun” kind of thing. I may think I’ve had an original idea, but chances are good that someone, somewhere on the globe has had the same idea or a very similar one. But who can bring it to the marketplace or into reality first, or at all? The person who does that, “owns” the idea. And the fruits that it produces.

 

[edwest2]

Good question. How is that possible? And yet all of us owning someone’s personal performance is just what copyright law establishes. After a length of time the public becomes the owner of all IP.

If I have the same idea as you but you have it one millisecond earlier you should own that idea for 120 years? That seems a bit unfair.

How is it unfair? Whoever files first gets the right to copy - a copyright. Who was George Lucas before he sold Star Wars?

I would like to hear why owning anything for 120 years and renewing the copyright again is unfair to anyone.

Peace,
Ed

 

[thewanderer]

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.

Can you rip copies?


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.

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:

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

Thanks for the clarification!

 

[thewanderer]

Do you mean books, music, what? You think that we all own someone’s personal performance of a musical piece? How is that possible? My son writes music, no one else helps him write it, it comes from his brain, it is HIS music! If I ever write a book, those words were MY choice, I did the writing, the book is MY property! Ideas/words/music/art is not common property!

I hope I am just not understanding you correctly, and you really don’t mean that no one owns their own creations or ideas!

Why does the format change mean that file-sharing is not theft? If I published a book, and someone else bought one copy, scanned it into a computer, printed hundreds of the counterfeit book, and sold them, that would be theft.

Speaking of counterfeit, why can’t I “file-share” $20 bills? I mean, no one owns the idea of money, right??

I am willing to admit upfront that my thoughts on this whole issue are not set in stone, I’m trying to understand it better, which is why I asked!

I guess what I mean is that at least with a concept or even with an arrangement of musical notes I find it hard to see how the person who frames the concept in writing or who first writes down a particular arrangement of music naturally owns it. A performance of music I can totally understand, that is something that is very particular to those performing it, but a particular arrangement of notes? The reason I find it hard to see that as something which is naturally owned by whoever makes it most widely known is that it is still possible for anybody who hasn’t heard it yet to come up with the exact same thought/song etc. Unlikely perhaps, but possible. It is not something intrinsically linked to the work of the person who made it well known and who took out a copyright.

Like I said, I think copyrights serve an important role, and I would say that your son would ‘own’ the music he writes, but only because of the manmade copyright laws… I just don’t see how he would own them naturally.

Maybe I am missing something, which, like I said is why I asked the question, this is a topic that I do not understand well enough but am very curious about, so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong!

 

[exnihilo]

Don’t confuse ideas with copyright. No one is claiming there is IP rights associated with an idea. You can’t get a patent or a copyright on an idea.

If IP rights are not associated with an idea what are they? IP rights protect creations of the mind. Is there a better word for creations of the mind than the word idea?

Unfair! Unfair! I am so sick of hearing “unfair!” Is it fair that I have an autoimmune disease and you don’t? Is it fair that your dog is bigger than mine is? Is it fair that my car is blue and yours is black? WHO CARES IF ANYTHING IS FAIR? Life isn’t fair!

I myself am tired of the many fair things called unfair. But I dont see how you can object to fairness being discussed in this topic since you basically said it was unfair for people to use the ideas your son has when he creates music without just (fair) compensation.

How is it unfair? Whoever files first gets the right to copy - a copyright. Who was George Lucas before he sold Star Wars?

I would like to hear why owning anything for 120 years and renewing the copyright again is unfair to anyone.

I think it is unfair due to the length of copyright. If copyright lasted a mere 20 years, as it did in the past, then the idea that a person getting an idea protected a split second before another person who had the same idea is less troublesome. But when you protect the idea across many generations it seems unfair.

If 120 years is fair then the law in the past was unfair. And if so the Jungle Book movie from Disney (published in 1967), which was based on Rudyard Kiplings book (published in 1894) by the same name, should have had to pay royalties to Kipling’s estate since his copyright would have still been in force. As it turns out Disney gets 120 years of protection from using a story that did not. Protecting that movie under different terms then the source story has to be unfair. A human isn’t likely to live 120 years after he creates a protected idea, but a corporation is. That is why the law has been extended. The fact that these corporations can own ideas far longer than the ideas they derived their idea from makes it unfair.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If IP rights are not associated with an idea what are they? IP rights protect creations of the mind. Is there a better word for creations of the mind than the word idea?

Here is an article that explains the difference between an idea and IP.

 

[edwest2]

I am willing to admit upfront that my thoughts on this whole issue are not set in stone, I’m trying to understand it better, which is why I asked!

I guess what I mean is that at least with a concept or even with an arrangement of musical notes I find it hard to see how the person who frames the concept in writing or who first writes down a particular arrangement of music naturally owns it. A performance of music I can totally understand, that is something that is very particular to those performing it, but a particular arrangement of notes? The reason I find it hard to see that as something which is naturally owned by whoever makes it most widely known is that it is still possible for anybody who hasn’t heard it yet to come up with the exact same thought/song etc. Unlikely perhaps, but possible. It is not something intrinsically linked to the work of the person who made it well known and who took out a copyright.

Like I said, I think copyrights serve an important role, and I would say that your son would ‘own’ the music he writes, but only because of the manmade copyright laws… I just don’t see how he would own them naturally.

Maybe I am missing something, which, like I said is why I asked the question, this is a topic that I do not understand well enough but am very curious about, so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong!

Why the quibble about what is “natural”? Is it OK to kill? Generally, no. Is it OK to kill an animal or human being that is clearly threatening your life or family? Yes.

Natural is not the issue. Is it moral to steal something? No. And that’s what “file sharing” is and no, I’m not talking about sharing any legal files or files offered with the direct permission of the rights owner for free.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

If IP rights are not associated with an idea what are they? IP rights protect creations of the mind. Is there a better word for creations of the mind than the word idea?

I myself am tired of the many fair things called unfair. But I dont see how you can object to fairness being discussed in this topic since you basically said it was unfair for people to use the ideas your son has when he creates music without just (fair) compensation.

I think it is unfair due to the length of copyright. If copyright lasted a mere 20 years, as it did in the past, then the idea that a person getting an idea protected a split second before another person who had the same idea is less troublesome. But when you protect the idea across many generations it seems unfair.

If 120 years is fair then the law in the past was unfair. And if so the Jungle Book movie from Disney (published in 1967), which was based on Rudyard Kiplings book (published in 1894) by the same name, should have had to pay royalties to Kipling’s estate since his copyright would have still been in force. As it turns out Disney gets 120 years of protection from using a story that did not. Protecting that movie under different terms then the source story has to be unfair. A human isn’t likely to live 120 years after he creates a protected idea, but a corporation is. That is why the law has been extended. The fact that these corporations can own ideas far longer than the ideas they derived their idea from makes it unfair.

Once again? Unfair to who? Why can’t I will the rights to my original work to my son and he to his son? Why not? And what’s wrong with a corporation owning rights for over a century?

1. What is stopping anyone from creating their own original works?
2. Why do I get the feeling that lazy and/or unimaginative people want copyrights to extend only 20 years so that if they saw Star Wars when they were 18, by the time they turn 38, they can make new books and toys and other Star Wars merchandise and, theoretically, lots and lots of money?

What people don’t get in most cases is that anyone can license a book, for example, from my company right now and make as much money as they want or can. However, they must pay my company a licensing fee and a portion of the profits.

Peace,
Ed

 

[thewanderer]

Why the quibble about what is “natural”? Is it OK to kill? Generally, no. Is it OK to kill an animal or human being that is clearly threatening your life or family? Yes.

Natural is not the issue. Is it moral to steal something? No. And that’s what “file sharing” is and no, I’m not talking about sharing any legal files or files offered with the direct permission of the rights owner for free.

Peace,
Ed

Simply put, because I like to understand things. Yes it is against the law. I have already admitted this multiple times. I realize that it is wrong to break the law unless it is an unjust law. I am not trying to justify breaking copyright laws in any way. I simply want to understand why it is wrong. I love to think about things and discuss them to figure out what is actually true. It is often the case that if people don’t make distinctions, such as understanding why it is wrong, it is easy for injustice to happen. That is why I keep bringing up what is natural, because it makes a difference as to why it is wrong which will in turn help to understand what exact copyright laws are the best ones to have in place.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Here is an article that explains the difference between an idea and IP.

That’s a good article, thanks! I had never heard about mailing yourself something to supposedly copyright it or give you claim of a patent. People have so many misconceptions of the law!!

 

[Dogmatic]

All ideas are belong to Jesus, except bad ideas.