The morality of File Sharing

  • Thread starter Thread starter Redbaron998
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Marybeloved said:
It really isn’t all that hard- You are the one pushing the argument with ‘license agreements’- not me. My position is that these agreements have no basis in natural law apart from our duty to respect just and rightful authority. For me hacking into someone’s website involves forcefully taking the actual files stored there that still belong to them that they have not sold or given away. Finding a way to get into your own product that you have bought and is your property is wholly different. Its immorality will be dependent, as I said to RealJulianne, on the issues of laziness and greed as well as the likelihood of harming the income of the creators in their work, which is a matter of justice that the IP laws take care of.
Click to expand...
I am interested in the question of morality of file sharing in the absence of any laws that addresses that issue. Suppose I am living in a country with no IP laws at all. Now I am not pushing an argument with license agreements. I am merely stating it as a fact in my scenario that I have chosen to sell my software under a license agreement. Your acceptance of that license agreement is a condition of the sale. I tell you upfront that if you do not want to agree to it then I will not sell to you. But suppose you agree. We shake hands and I give you the use of the software and you give me the money. Note that I did not sell you the software. I only sold you the right to use the software in a certain way. You cannot unilaterally decide after the sale to change the terms of the sale. It is something like renting a cottage for a week. After the week is up, suppose I decide that the money I paid for one week’s rent really was for buying the property outright. Or suppose I decided that one week’s rent really should cover two weeks and I want to stay an extra week without paying. That’s what buying software is like. You don’t really own the software outright any more than the renter owns the cottage outright. And all of this can be examined without recourse to any IP laws just based on the morality of agreements between two people - the buyer and the seller.

Now music may be a different case because it is not normally sold with an explicit license agreement. You just buy a CD or something. In that case IP law defines an implicit restriction on use. And I will agree with you that those laws can be quite arbitrary in setting time limits on copyright. So if you want to make the case that copying a music CD is not against natural law I will not challenge you on that. So if I agree with you on music CDs will you agree with me on software that is sold with an explicit license agreement?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I am interested in the question of morality of file sharing in the absence of any laws that addresses that issue. Suppose I am living in a country with no IP laws at all. Now I am not pushing an argument with license agreements. I am merely stating it as a fact in my scenario that I have chosen to sell my software under a license agreement. Your acceptance of that license agreement is a condition of the sale. I tell you upfront that if you do not want to agree to it then I will not sell to you. But suppose you agree. We shake hands and I give you the use of the software and you give me the money. Note that I did not sell you the software. I only sold you the right to use the software in a certain way. You cannot unilaterally decide after the sale to change the terms of the sale. It is something like renting a cottage for a week. After the week is up, suppose I decide that the money I paid for one week’s rent really was for buying the property outright. Or suppose I decided that one week’s rent really should cover two weeks and I want to stay an extra week without paying. That’s what buying software is like. You don’t really own the software outright any more than the renter owns the cottage outright. And all of this can be examined without recourse to any IP laws just based on the morality of agreements between two people - the buyer and the seller.
Click to expand...
Why would those agreements have any weight unless they were based in ownership? Renting out real property or tools is based on the idea that you’re only permitting use of the property, but not giving away total ownership of it. I have a right to tell you how to use my property that I let you rent or borrow because it’s known to both of us that the entire time you use the property it remains mine, and that you will eventually have to give it back. I don’t know that license agreements can be imposed in cases where one transfers actual ownership to another via sale or some other means. At least I’ve never seen anywhere that a person sells his property with conditions as to how the buyer will use it in future- if he did, then there would be no real sale or transfer of ownership- sale or transfer of ownership refers to this very unrestricted and unfettered use and possession of that property, you’re called the owner precisely because you alone get to determine what to do with your own property within the greater society (that may itself restrict your use on just grounds for various reasons for the common good). Any attempt to impose on this unfetteredness is not a sale, so I don’t see how it can under any strict justice, bind a buyer for value. For it to bind, we are assuming that it is only a rental and not a sale, that the seller still owns what he’s sold to me, the CDs and files.
 
Marybeloved said:
Why would those agreements have any weight unless they were based in ownership? Renting out real property or tools is based on the idea that you’re only permitting use of the property, but not giving away total ownership of it. I have a right to tell you how to use my property that I let you rent or borrow because it’s known to both of us that the entire time you use the property it remains mine, and that you will eventually have to give it back. I don’t know that license agreements can be imposed in cases where one transfers actual ownership to another via sale or some other means. At least I’ve never seen anywhere that a person sells his property with conditions as to how the buyer will use it in future- if he did, then there would be no real sale or transfer of ownership- sale or transfer of ownership refers to this very unrestricted and unfettered use and possession of that property, you’re called the owner precisely because you alone get to determine what to do with your own property within the greater society (that may itself restrict your use on just grounds for various reasons for the common good). Any attempt to impose on this unfetteredness is not a sale, so I don’t see how it can under any strict justice, bind a buyer for value. For it to bind, we are assuming that it is only a rental and not a sale, that the seller still owns what he’s sold to me, the CDs and files.
Click to expand...
An agreement between buyer and seller does not have to be based on ownership of physical property. Suppose I agree to patch your leaky roof in return for some potatoes from your garden. I am selling you my labor, which I have a right to sell. This example does not contain any restrictions on how you can use that roof afterwards, but it does at least illustrate that I can sell the results of my labor. Similarly with software, it is the result of my labor. I created it. Why wouldn’t I have the right to sell it under any conditions that I choose? You don’t have to buy it and I don’t have to give it to you for free. Until you pay for it you have no right to it. And I won’t let you pay for it unless you accept the license agreement I specified. Don’t I have a right under natural law to sell my labor under terms I choose?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
An agreement between buyer and seller does not have to be based on ownership of physical property. Suppose I agree to patch your leaky roof in return for some potatoes from your garden. I am selling you my labor, which I have a right to sell. This example does not contain any restrictions on how you can use that roof afterwards, but it does at least illustrate that I can sell the results of my labor. Similarly with software, it is the result of my labor. I created it. Why wouldn’t I have the right to sell it under any conditions that I choose? You don’t have to buy it and I don’t have to give it to you for free. Until you pay for it you have no right to it. And I won’t let you pay for it unless you accept the license agreement I specified. Don’t I have a right under natural law to sell my labor under terms I choose?
Click to expand...
I think that depends…If you are the main farmer in an area, and so the main sourcce of food and chose to sell your products at ridiculous prices because you could even to the extent of bankrupting the people you were selling it to, that would certainly not be something you have a right to do… I think there have to be some limits to the conditions under which one is able to sell their own labour
 
thewanderer said:
I think that depends…If you are the main farmer in an area, and so the main sourcce of food and chose to sell your products at ridiculous prices because you could even to the extent of bankrupting the people you were selling it to, that would certainly not be something you have a right to do… I think there have to be some limits to the conditions under which one is able to sell their own labour
Click to expand...
Yes, your example brings in a new factor - being the sole supplier of an essential product. But when that happens it is a temporary situation. Unless unjust forces prevent it, competition will arise and that supplier will no longer be the sole supplier. But in this discussion of file sharing we are talking about software that is not essential to life. Furthermore I am not talking about a monopoly either. We can assume there is plenty of competition for my software so if I set unrealistic conditions for licensing it then people just won’t buy it. It is under those conditions that I have the right to set whatever terms the market will bear.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Yes, your example brings in a new factor - being the sole supplier of an essential product. But when that happens it is a temporary situation. Unless unjust forces prevent it, competition will arise and that supplier will no longer be the sole supplier. But in this discussion of file sharing we are talking about software that is not essential to life. Furthermore I am not talking about a monopoly either. We can assume there is plenty of competition for my software so if I set unrealistic conditions for licensing it then people just won’t buy it. It is under those conditions that I have the right to set whatever terms the market will bear.
Click to expand...
That is correct. Whatever the market will bear. In the United States, at least, there is almost no limit to the amount of software, or music or movies you can buy. And there are usually a number of vendors (I really dislike that term) selling it at different prices. Then, each company does a market analysis. This is done to make certain that the product is selling less because:

A) People think it costs too much as compared to its usefulness, or as compared to lower prices being offered for the same item by other vendors. This may compel the seller/owner to lower the price.

B) People think the product (book, CD, software) is simply not worth buying. In other words, it’s just a bad CD or movie or piece of software, etc.

There are usually a number of websites that evaluate a book, CD, piece of software, etc. on many different levels.

Just because copying a movie no longer requires a physical CD, and the same for software or music, it still must be taken into consideration that the actual value of the work in question is its quality, and quality is directly proportional to the amount of time and money put in.

I work in publishing and we have to pay artists, writers, editors, proofreaders, art directors, and for the really big publishing houses - cover designers. These people are highly skilled professionals. You don’t take that book to market without it having gone through many professional hands. And two of the big six publishers are refusing to sign amazon.com’s new pricing deal.

“At least two of the big six publishers in the US are refusing to renew contracts with Amazon.com, with the giant internet retailer said to be downplaying the promotion of their titles as a result of the dispute.”

The company I work for is certainly not going to let amazon charge $3.99 for a book that is worth $24.95 retail, and which we know people are willing to buy at that price.

It is immoral to “share” a copyrighted work that is being offered for money by the seller/owner. Just because it’s digital bits does not make it any less real than if it were made available on a physical medium.

I watch a movie that was downloaded for free from a file-sharing site.
I watch the same that was downloaded from NetFlix for $10.00 (or whatever).

In the latter case, everybody gets a cut. Their fair share. In the first case, nobody gets nothing, except those who stole it. They get something that has real monetary value for nothing. All the money that went into making the product is ignored. It is unjust to take what is not yours without compensation, except in those cases where the owner of the work explicitly makes it available for free.

Peace,
Ed
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Yes, your example brings in a new factor - being the sole supplier of an essential product. But when that happens it is a temporary situation. Unless unjust forces prevent it, competition will arise and that supplier will no longer be the sole supplier. But in this discussion of file sharing we are talking about software that is not essential to life. Furthermore I am not talking about a monopoly either. We can assume there is plenty of competition for my software so if I set unrealistic conditions for licensing it then people just won’t buy it. It is under those conditions that I have the right to set whatever terms the market will bear.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clearing that up, I guess it was rather a minor point.

I’m still wondering about your example though. you bring up the case of someonoe who buys the product and then repeoduces it through copying it. What about somebody who creates the same software completely independently? Yes, I realize that it is not super likely to happen, but I think it is this example that leads me to believe that it is not a matter of the natural law as such, but rather because of an agreement you have made or beccause of a just law that has been passed by a legitimate authority. In such a case you would be producing copies of a software that someone else created, but you would be violating no agreement, and assuming there are no copyright laws I can’t see how it would be wrong to do so.
 
thewanderer said:
Thanks for clearing that up, I guess it was rather a minor point.

I’m still wondering about your example though. you bring up the case of someonoe who buys the product and then repeoduces it through copying it. What about somebody who creates the same software completely independently? Yes, I realize that it is not super likely to happen, but I think it is this example that leads me to believe that it is not a matter of the natural law as such, but rather because of an agreement you have made or beccause of a just law that has been passed by a legitimate authority. In such a case you would be producing copies of a software that someone else created, but you would be violating no agreement, and assuming there are no copyright laws I can’t see how it would be wrong to do so.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. If you create something that behaves the same it is your creation and you can do what you want with it. There may be patent problems with that, but I think that falls outside the bounds of natural law.
 
Does anyone have any advice regarding the morality of downloading a tv series once one has payed for it, and is awaiting the delivery of the DVD?
 
Patience is a virtue. Greed is a vice.

I’d say that if you care enough to spend money on a tv show, then don’t sully the experience by diving into the ethical quagmire that is downloading (I assume illegitimate) copies of the show off the internet.

Legally, you’re breaking copyright laws by doing so. The only legal right you have is to watch that show on the DVD en route to you. You have no legal right to watch the show however you please. In essence, you did not purchase a copy of the show itself, you purchased a viewing right. That viewing right is to watch it on that particular medium (the DVD). Viewing a digital copy of the show is not part of your purchase, and so you would be wrong to download it. Even making your own digital copies is currently against the law for most discs, as you would need to circumvent the DRM to do so (which is an illegal act).

Morally, you have a Christian duty to uphold the laws that do not violate God’s laws. If you disagree with a law, you should pursue legal avenues to change the law, not flaunt it because it’s inconvenient.
 
nesguy said:
Patience is a virtue. Greed is a vice.

I’d say that if you care enough to spend money on a tv show, then don’t sully the experience by diving into the ethical quagmire that is downloading (I assume illegitimate) copies of the show off the internet.

Legally, you’re breaking copyright laws by doing so. The only legal right you have is to watch that show on the DVD en route to you. You have no legal right to watch the show however you please. In essence, you did not purchase a copy of the show itself, you purchased a viewing right. That viewing right is to watch it on that particular medium (the DVD). Viewing a digital copy of the show is not part of your purchase, and so you would be wrong to download it. Even making your own digital copies is currently against the law for most discs, as you would need to circumvent the DRM to do so (which is an illegal act).

Morally, you have a Christian duty to uphold the laws that do not violate God’s laws. If you disagree with a law, you should pursue legal avenues to change the law, not flaunt it because it’s inconvenient.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your response, patience is something I have asked God to give me more of. I now have the opportunity to practice my patience. Thank you, I will heed your advice.
 
David89 said:
Does anyone have any advice regarding the morality of downloading a tv series once one has payed for it, and is awaiting the delivery of the DVD?
Click to expand...
“The pleasure of what we enjoy is lost by wanting more” from a Chinese fortune cookie that is next to my monitor. 🙂
 
You mean like iTunes, Napster/Rhapsody, etc.? Now I know this for sure. 8 oout of 10 people on this site are overthinking things. It’s perfectly fine, unless you decide to committ the sin/crime of illegal downloading/pirating.
 
thewanderer said:
Because some of us are not here for the sake of discovering what is the correct thing to do in a particular present circumstance, but are trying to understand the reason behind it for the sake of knowing and understanding it. 🤷 This is a good thing in and of itself to do. Not every conversation on CAF has to be geared towards a practical problem that somebody is dealing with.
Click to expand...
Copyright means right to copy. That’s it. If you don’t have the right to copy a song or movie or TV show, or music video, you have two choices: contact the owner and get permission, or DON"T COPY IT.

Peace,
Ed
 
exnihilo said:
I read the first part of that article. He is talking legally not philosophically. He actually says all IP starts with an idea. That should not be controversial since IP stands for Intellectual Property. What does the intellect produce, other than ideas? He goes on to explain you must express or publish the idea in order to claim ownership in the idea. I agree. But what is ultimately protected is an idea. You can’t say the actual expression is protected because even if I reproduce the idea myself I am still violating the protection offered to the idea. I can not assemble the expression on my own. What is protected is not the physical expression but the idea behind it.

Unfair to the rest of society. Monopolies are generally looked upon negatively.

If you can own ideas then you can. Thank goodness the Apostles did not have this notion otherwise the Gospel would have never spread.

Copyright law. If someone else had the same idea but published or otherwise obtained exclusive ownership of it a split second before me then I can no longer recreate what I myself created. The idea is original for two people but only one gets to own it exclusively.

I could easily say why do I get the feeling rent seekers are the ones who support copyright law.

Why do you presume only the lazy and unimaginative people support copyright? If you are not aware you should learn about all the free software available that has been given to the public. You can get a complete operating system that is the result of millions of man hours of work for free.
Click to expand...
A monopoly? I suggest you look up the legal definition. What’s wrong with exclusive ownership? And what’s wrong with somebody getting an idea patented before you did? If I invent the light bulb, sure, you can make more light bulbs but you pay me a fee for each one you make. That’s how it works. Go ahead, make some pink and green ones, I still get paid. Please, do some research before assuming something.

From the U.S. Copyright Office

How long does a copyright last?

catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=402

What does copyright protect?

"Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “What Works Are Protected.”

I can get stuff for free? So what? That has not nothing to do with stealing copyrighted works.

Peace,
Ed
 
I’m sure file sharing has immoral properties to it. What I’m not convinced of is that it’s the same thing as stealing.

The catechism clearly outlines that theft is the taking of property against the will of the owner.

On the basis of this definition, I can’t see how file sharing applies.

The only thing I could find on the subject was an unofficial blog post comparing intellectual property with embezzlement and fraud, and that’s hardly convincing, for the simple reason that embezzlement and fraud lead to something being removed from the possession of the property-owner, and therefore clearly fall under the accepted definition.

However, in issues of file sharing, nothing at all is removed from the possession of the owner. It would be like accusing you of stealing a ball while I’m still holding it.
I have heard arguments in defense of the concept of “intellectual property,” but none have impressed me too much, for two principal reasons.
  1. They didn’t come from an authoritative, magisterial source.
  2. If you want to defend the existence of a broad-ranging intellectual property, this means that one man has ownership over another man’s thoughts, which is contrary to the notion of the human soul, which cannot be divided into parts, for ownership purposes or otherwise. You might as well ask for five shares of stock in the number 7.
On what grounds is file sharing wrong, in the absence of these claims that it’s the same thing as stealing? On at least two grounds.
  1. Bearing false witness. You live as though you purchased the file, when you did not.
  2. Disobedience to civil authorities in a matter not contrary to the doctrines of the church.
Frankly, though, I can’t think of any way for the traditional, societal arguments against file sharing to hold up under honest scrutiny, nor have I heard a word on this from the magisterium. Now, if I just missed something, please let me know. I’d hate to think there was some key document on the subject that I hadn’t read sufficiently.
 
If you are sharing copyrighted files with others then you are essentially encouraging theft. This is not to mention that we should abide by the just laws of the land and I believe copyright laws are just laws.
 
mytruepower2 said:
I’m sure file sharing has immoral properties to it. What I’m not convinced of is that it’s the same thing as stealing.

The catechism clearly outlines that theft is the taking of property against the will of the owner.

On the basis of this definition, I can’t see how file sharing applies.

The only thing I could find on the subject was an unofficial blog post comparing intellectual property with embezzlement and fraud, and that’s hardly convincing, for the simple reason that embezzlement and fraud lead to something being removed from the possession of the property-owner, and therefore clearly fall under the accepted definition.

However, in issues of file sharing, nothing at all is removed from the possession of the owner. It would be like accusing you of stealing a ball while I’m still holding it.
I have heard arguments in defense of the concept of “intellectual property,” but none have impressed me too much, for two principal reasons.
  1. They didn’t come from an authoritative, magisterial source.
  2. If you want to defend the existence of a broad-ranging intellectual property, this means that one man has ownership over another man’s thoughts, which is contrary to the notion of the human soul, which cannot be divided into parts, for ownership purposes or otherwise. You might as well ask for five shares of stock in the number 7.
On what grounds is file sharing wrong, in the absence of these claims that it’s the same thing as stealing? On at least two grounds.
  1. Bearing false witness. You live as though you purchased the file, when you did not.
  2. Disobedience to civil authorities in a matter not contrary to the doctrines of the church.
Frankly, though, I can’t think of any way for the traditional, societal arguments against file sharing to hold up under honest scrutiny, nor have I heard a word on this from the magisterium. Now, if I just missed something, please let me know. I’d hate to think there was some key document on the subject that I hadn’t read sufficiently.
Click to expand...
There is nothing vague here.

Why do you buy a book, song or movie? To read, listen to or watch as many times as you would like.

If I have the exclusive “right to copy,” or copyright, for my book or song or movie, what gives anyone the right to take it and use it in exactly the same way for free? They have no “right to copy.” And it costs the company I work for money.

Peace,
Ed
 
mytruepower2 said:
On what grounds is file sharing wrong, in the absence of these claims that it’s the same thing as stealing? On at least two grounds.
  1. Bearing false witness. You live as though you purchased the file, when you did not.
  2. Disobedience to civil authorities in a matter not contrary to the doctrines of the church.
Frankly, though, I can’t think of any way for the traditional, societal arguments against file sharing to hold up under honest scrutiny, nor have I heard a word on this from the magisterium. Now, if I just missed something, please let me know. I’d hate to think there was some key document on the subject that I hadn’t read sufficiently.
Click to expand...
Are these insufficient enough reasons to stop file-sharing? As many have already said before (myself included), for a Catholic, it doesn’t matter whether or not file-sharing is the same as stealing. I don’t think we need an official word from the magisterium on this matter because they’ve already said obey laws that do not run contrary to God’s law, and in most countries, there are laws against copyright infringement.
 
edwest2 said:
A monopoly? I suggest you look up the legal definition.
Click to expand...
What is the legal definition and where do I find it? It would seem to me the economic definition would suffice since we are not in a court of law and by that IP is a monopoly. If you are in doubt just check out this Wiki Category page on monopolies in Econ. You’ll find all the words copyright, patent, Intellectual Property.
edwest2 said:
What’s wrong with exclusive ownership? And what’s wrong with somebody getting an idea patented before you did? If I invent the light bulb, sure, you can make more light bulbs but you pay me a fee for each one you make. That’s how it works. Go ahead, make some pink and green ones, I still get paid. Please, do some research before assuming something.
Click to expand...
Exclusive ownership is great for some things like real property. It is not so great for ideas. What is wrong with patenting an idea is thoroughly discussed in this topic. I’ve actually thoroughly researched the topic and based on your post I’m not so sure you have thoroughly read this thread.
edwest2 said:
I can get stuff for free? So what? That has not nothing to do with stealing copyrighted works.
Click to expand...
As discussed in depth elsewhere, including this thread, the justification for copyright is that it encourages ideas and development of those ideas. The fact that you can get so much free stuff of the same character and quality of stuff you are being made to pay for suggests the idea behind copyright might not be true. If this is so then copyright is a huge detriment to society. And duplicating copyrighted material is not stealing if you can not own an idea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top