The morality of File Sharing

[Brofessor]

Filesharing is, as nearly as I can tell, no more sinful than lending a book or CD to your friend.

Filesharing is when your friend buys an album, they put it on the internet, and you both get to enjoy the music.

Stealing is when your friend buys an album, you take it without asking, and you get the music while he doesn’t.

I don’t know what’s so hard about this. Here’s the part where people come in saying “BUT BROF UR STEELIN FRM ARTISTS N COMPANEEZ LOL”. Two-part answer:

1. If you’re concerned about artists, buy the album later if you like it, or support them by buying a t-shirt or going to a concert. In any case, they make a ridiculously small royalty from the music itself, to the point where many artists actually support filesharing. Consider the support shown, for example, for Megaupload by many hip-hop and R&B artists.
2. Companies are pretty much the Man, the larger ones care nothing about music and everything about money. Secondly, the music was never stolen in the first place, since your friend paid for the album that you’re borrowing.

 

[mytruepower2]

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.

You made three points here.

Point 1: Why do I buy a book, song or movie?

Usually, because I want to own it.

Point 2: “Right to copy.”

According to the Catholic Church, a “right” is something given to man by God, which cannot be added, nor removed by any human institution. What you’re referring to is something called a “legal license.” Legal licenses do exist, and do serve a function in society, but that function is not to redefine the theology of what’s stealing and what isn’t.

Point 3: It costs the company that you work for money.

Not sure how you expected your point to sound any stronger by admitting you had ulterior motive for making it, but oh, well…

My reply to this is simply to pose another question. -How- does it cost your company money? -What money- is actually cost? When was it in your possession? When was it removed from your possession? By whom? These are all questions which need to be answered in cases of stealing.

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.

Don’t take my post the wrong way. I say these kinds of things because I want to get at the truth; not to give cover to internet pirates.

Of -course- these reasons are sufficient. My point is merely that -these- are the reasons we have.

 

[thewanderer]

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

My question is to what extent is a copyright a real right. Is it simply a legal consturct? or is it something explicitly in natural law? If it is something explicitly in natural law what particular aspect of natural law is it breaking? If it is a legal construct what are the limitations natural law places on such a legal construct to make it just and so binding?

Look, Ed, I’ve already stated on this thread multiple times that I do not think its ok to break copyright, the reason being because it is against the law. I am open to correction that there is some other reason beyond this, but please stop assuming that the question at hand is whether or not its ok to break a copyright law. I am assuming that it isn’t and trying to figure out the exact philosophical details of why it isn’t. I have some ideas about this, but I know I don’t understand it fully. From other posts on this thread it is pretty clear that I am not the only person who is interested in said philosophical discussion. So telling me and others to not break copyright is actually completely off-topic unless some specific person joins this thread in the future and says he’s going to or that he thinks its ok. I would appreciate it if you don’t further try to stifle this intellectual conversation through telling everyone “Its wrong, don’t do it, end of discussion.” We are discussing in what exactly the wrongness of such an act lies.