Why I don't think file sharing is stealing. and critique about capitalism

[someperson555]

If you buy something ( or a copy of something) then it is rightfully yours to do with as you wish.therefore if you purchase a movie download and make copies and give them to your friends that is not stealing because you have not deprived anyone of anything. For example; if I make a copy of your toaster is that stealing? If I have not deprived you of your toaster then it is not stealing. I mean copyright laws can be reduced to absurdity. Think about it, if I lend my book to one of my friends is that stealing? Since they havent paid for the information. If I learn something from a textbook am I not allowed to share that information with others? Some will argue that sharing files takes away from the artists profit. Well thats not societys problem. You cant halt technological progress just fot the sake of profit. Furthermore I dont think its all that right to make money off of art anyway. Art should be done for the sake of beauty and expression. Not to make a profit. I think these bands and musicians should get real jobs which are productive to society. Furthermore music is when the air is vibrated and travels to the ears thus these artists require air to make their music and movies, yet they dont pay royalties for their use of air. So theyre hypocrites.

Capitalism has many evils but this is just one of them.

Oh and to all of you who are going to appeal to the law ( which is a fallacy) know this: legal is not always moral and illegal is not always immoral. Laws are arbitrary man made rules and many times they have no basis in actual REAL natural law or divine law.

Actually I would like to digress further into why capitalism itself is inherently anti- Christian and incompatible with christianity. No one has any real moral right to fence off an area of land and call it theirs. You cannot own a natural resource. These things belong to the people as a whole ( or God) therefore no man can rightfully " own" anything. He can work the natural resources and produce goods and services out of them and yes he is entitled to a profit from his intellectual labors. But he does have any intrinsic right to these raw materials and resources and land. That is why he is obligated to pay taxes, raise the wages of his workers, be mindful of the environment. The business owner is still obligated to work for the common good. Thats also why if he misuses his business the state has the right before God to terminate his ownership and return it to the people.
I could go on but im going to wrap it up because this is getting REALLY long lol. So I think the proper economic system is a type of socialism. And NO it is not " a sin" to be a socialist. Those people who think so are ignorant of history. The church only disapproved of socialism in the early 20 th century for political reasons. And because most socialists were atheists therefore the church basically threw the baby out with the bath water and condemned the whole ideology. The early Christians were basically socialists. So I think it is the most moral system and the closest to eternal laws of nature.

 

[TARRAT]

Actually the church does not teach that socialism is the best economic system. The church teaches freedom by extension you should be free to buy and sell and own and give and make a living.

You don’t believe in ownership. That wasn’t very well thought out. How about if I come and sleep in your house tonight, eat your food, drink your beverages. After all you have no right of ownership.

People should be allowed to make a living by what they make. Some people make steel. Some people make cars. Some people make movies. Some people make music. They all have ownership of what they make. When you take that which you did not make and distribute it to others you deprive the owner of that product from making money off of it.

Actually a line from the U.S. Jaycees sums it up pretty well. “Economic justice can best be won by free men through free enterprise.” (underline for emphasis)Enslaving the productive in order to enable those who don’t wish to be productive is unjust.

 

[unstoppable_II]

…
Actually I would like to digress further into why capitalism itself is inherently anti- Christian and incompatible with christianity. No one has any real moral right to fence off an area of land and call it theirs. You cannot own a natural resource. These things belong to the people as a whole ( or God) therefore no man can rightfully " own" anything. He can work the natural resources and produce goods and services out of them and yes he is entitled to a profit from his intellectual labors. But he does have any intrinsic right to these raw materials and resources and land. …

There is a lot in your post, but let me address only a portion. Much of it is against “On Socialism”, an Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII promulgated on 28 December 1878.
ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/L13APOST.HTM

… they [socialists, communists, et al] assail the right of property sanctioned by natural law; and by a scheme of horrible wickedness, while they seem desirous of caring for the needs and satisfying the desires of all men, they strive to seize and hold in common whatever has been acquired either by title of lawful inheritance, or by labor of brain and hands, or by thrift in one’s mode of life.]

And just think about it. The Seventh Commandment says “Thou shalt not steal.” How can there be a concept of theft if no one is allowed ot own anything? You should review the Catechism, begining with paragraph 2401 scborromeo.org.ccc/p3s2c2a7.htm#I. Among the problems of property held in community is the fact that no one takes care of property not his as he does his own.

I also encourage you to read the essay “Economic Organization of a POW Camp” facstaff.uww.edu/kashianr/POWCampRadford.pdf by economist R.A. Radford who describes what happens when people, although confined, are free to engage in trade to better their condition. A Leftist injected into this scenario would immediately decry one prisoner having two candybars and another none, even though this was the result of voluntary trade. The Leftist would immediately work to redistribute the comfort items so everyone had an equal amount. I would have the same number of cigarettes as the smoker, even though I don’t smoke. The overall well-being of the POWs would be lowered as a result. This is exactly what is happening under øbama(PBUH), et al.

While Holy Mother Church is highly critical of capitalism, she condemns socialism, which is what you are proposing.

However, there is a third alternative rarely discussed, and that is distributism [sp?], which attempts to correct one of the problems with capitalism: man serving wealth instead of wealth serving man. It advocates the wide distribution of wealth instead of its concentration. You can find it in an on-line encyclopedia.

 

[agnes_therese]

If you buy something ( or a copy of something) then it is rightfully yours to do with as you wish.therefore if you purchase a movie download and make copies and give them to your friends that is not stealing because you have not deprived anyone of anything.

It’s completely untrue that “you have not deprived anyone of anything.” You have deprived that movie’s makers of the proceeds of potential sales. I expect you’d feel differently if someone were handing out free copies of something you created and were selling.

 

[Timothysis]

You have deprived that movie’s makers of the proceeds of **potential **sales.

That’s rather ambiguous, don’t you think? If you tell me that you want to buy a particular CD and I tell you that I have it, give it a listen and decide you don’t like it and won’t buy it, does that mean that I am liable for the artist losing a “potential” sale?

This whole “potential” sale line of reasoning is based upon the assumption that a person would have bought everything that they may have gotten either through having a copy made or downloading it. When Napster first came out way back when, the first tune I downloaded (on dial-up that took about 20 minutes!) was Spirit In The Sky by Norman Greenbaum. Was I going to go out and buy the Best of Norman Greenbaum to get that song? No. It just doesn’t work that way. But I can say that I have downloaded music that I liked so much that it made me buy everything associated with that artist, including other acts that were associated with him. It really is a two-sided argument.

 

[unstoppable_II]

…
This whole “potential” sale line of reasoning is based upon the assumption that a person would have bought everything that they may have gotten either through having a copy made or downloading it. …

I have wondered about this myself. Besides, Napster was not free; it usually took a lot of time and effort to make a song listenable, if you could. In fact, some of them were in such terrible shape, I went out and bought them, something I wouldn’t have done without Napster.

A couple of years ago, I read about an initiative that if passed would require the payment of royalties on CDs sold at garage sales.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

Musicians and artists deserve to get paid, if they provide a service that audiences are willing to pay for.

If the audiences are not willing to pay, then I guess they shouldn’t get paid.

Michelangelo got paid to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

Also

 

[Timothysis]

I have wondered about this myself. Besides, Napster was not free; it usually took a lot of time and effort to make a song listenable, if you could. In fact, some of them were in such terrible shape, I went out and bought them, something I wouldn’t have done without Napster.

Yeah, same here. I wouldn’t have known anything about American roots music if it wasn’t for file sharing. I can’t even begin to tell you how many CD’s I have bought of it.

A couple of years ago, I read about an initiative that if passed would require the payment of royalties on CDs sold at garage sales.

Good luck with that. I’m not surprised, though. Those involved with copyright protections have a large, big-money lobby industry that is constantly working to make copyrights more restrictive. Why does Yoko Ono continue to collect millions of dollars a year for songs that John Lennon wrote 50 years ago when he has been dead for over 30 years? His songs should pass into public domain.

 

[Timothysis]

Michelangelo got paid to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

During the painting of the Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo constantly wrote to his father about how the pope hadn’t paid him in months. He wrote, “…*.as a result, I cannot be robbed.” *

 

[unstoppable_II]

… Why does Yoko Ono continue to collect millions of dollars a year for songs that John Lennon wrote 50 years ago when he has been dead for over 30 years? His songs should pass into public domain.

Because the copyright is good for the life of the author plus 75 years [that’s the last I heard]. However, the plus side of this is a major on-line merchant sells individual songs for 99 cents each. I have purchased a number of them and found them to be excellent copies. No more spending $18 to get one good song on a CD.

 

[Timothysis]

Because the copyright is good for the life of the author plus 75 years [that’s the last I heard]. However, the plus side of this is a major on-line merchant sells individual songs for 99 cents each. I have purchased a number of them and found them to be excellent copies. No more spending $18 to get one good song on a CD.

I understand the legalities of it but copyrights are supposed to protect the author. The copyright lobbyist have managed to extend copyrights to maximize monetary intake. One of the staunchest supporters of extending copyright is the Gershwin family. George Gershwin died childless in 1936 (his brother Ira didn’t die until the 1980s) but his extended family, who probably never even knew him, are still raking in millions of dollars each year from his music. To quote a song of his, “that’s nice work if you can get it.”

 

[unstoppable_II]

I understand the legalities of it but copyrights are supposed to protect the author. The copyright lobbyist have managed to extend copyrights to maximize monetary intake. One of the staunchest supporters of extending copyright is the Gershwin family. George Gershwin died childless in 1936 (his brother Ira didn’t die until the 1980s) but his extended family, who probably never even knew him, are still raking in millions of dollars each year from his music. To quote a song of his, “that’s nice work if you can get it.”

If the 75 years is correct, and according to my calculation, his copyrights ran out in 2011. Obviously there is more to it than 75.

 

[Sunbreak]

Furthermore I dont think its all that right to make money off of art anyway. Art should be done for the sake of beauty and expression. Not to make a profit.

By your reasoning doctors shouldn’t charge anyone either because it’s not right to make money off of people suffering. Medical help should be given freely for the sake of helping those who have illness, not to make a profit.

Car mechanics shouldn’t charge anyone because they are taking advantage of people who can’t get to work without their cars. They should fix the cars for the sake of helping people.

We could go on with this kind of thinking, but the point is that artists, writers and musicians have a real talent and they should be paid for it. Too many times people think their work isn’t “real” work yet are willing to have millions paid to athletes (who is my opinion, are examples of people who aren’t doing any “real” work).

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

During the painting of the Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo constantly wrote to his father about how the pope hadn’t paid him in months. He wrote, “…*.as a result, I cannot be robbed.” *

LOL I guess the industry hasn’t changed all that much…

 

[someperson555]

By your reasoning doctors shouldn’t charge anyone either because it’s not right to make money off of people suffering. Medical help should be given freely for the sake of helping those who have illness, not to make a profit.

Car mechanics shouldn’t charge anyone because they are taking advantage of people who can’t get to work without their cars. They should fix the cars for the sake of helping people.

We could go on with this kind of thinking, but the point is that artists, writers and musicians have a real talent and they should be paid for it. Too many times people think their work isn’t “real” work yet are willing to have millions paid to athletes (who is my opinion, are examples of people who aren’t doing any “real” work).

Absolutely. It is despicable that people go into the medical profession with the goal of making money. When you choose to be a doctor your object should not be money, it should be to help people!
Society has become so materialistic and so focused on money that they have lost sight of higher more noble motivations and goals. A society will always collapse when it is based on individualism. History has proven this. In past lassez faire free market societies most people were so poor they could barely afford the basics.

 

[someperson555]

Yeah, same here. I wouldn’t have known anything about American roots music if it wasn’t for file sharing. I can’t even begin to tell you how many CD’s I have bought of it.

Good luck with that. I’m not surprised, though. Those involved with copyright protections have a large, big-money lobby industry that is constantly working to make copyrights more restrictive. Why does Yoko Ono continue to collect millions of dollars a year for songs that John Lennon wrote 50 years ago when he has been dead for over 30 years? His songs should pass into public domain.

Yeah. Copyright laws are already bordering on absurd. But renewal of copyright laws is utterly ridiculous and blatant corporate greed.
So many people forget that money doesnt magically make something yours. Money has arbitrary value. It is a man made thing. God does not recognize the value of the dollar. There are some things money just cant buy. The pro capitalist fanboys on here dont see the error in their logic. You cant privatize the air for example. Just like you can’t own a forest or a lake. It doesn’t matter that some piece of paper says its yours, it cannot ever be truly " owned".

 

[someperson555]

There is a lot in your post, but let me address only a portion. Much of it is against “On Socialism”, an Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII promulgated on 28 December 1878.
ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/L13APOST.HTM

And just think about it. The Seventh Commandment says “Thou shalt not steal.” How can there be a concept of theft if no one is allowed ot own anything? You should review the Catechism, begining with paragraph 2401 scborromeo.org.ccc/p3s2c2a7.htm#I. Among the problems of property held in community is the fact that no one takes care of property not his as he does his own.

I also encourage you to read the essay “Economic Organization of a POW Camp” facstaff.uww.edu/kashianr/POWCampRadford.pdf by economist R.A. Radford who describes what happens when people, although confined, are free to engage in trade to better their condition. A Leftist injected into this scenario would immediately decry one prisoner having two candybars and another none, even though this was the result of voluntary trade. The Leftist would immediately work to redistribute the comfort items so everyone had an equal amount. I would have the same number of cigarettes as the smoker, even though I don’t smoke. The overall well-being of the POWs would be lowered as a result. This is exactly what is happening under øbama(PBUH), et al.

While Holy Mother Church is highly critical of capitalism, she condemns socialism, which is what you are proposing.

However, there is a third alternative rarely discussed, and that is distributism [sp?], which attempts to correct one of the problems with capitalism: man serving wealth instead of wealth serving man. It advocates the wide distribution of wealth instead of its concentration. You can find it in an on-line encyclopedia.

No.
First of all I never supported wealth redistribution ( when the wealth is earned by honest means. Not through usury or profiteering). I do not support handouts. I am a socialist therefore I believe every healthy individual must work and be a productive member of society. Only those who are truly disabled should get welfare. The current neglect of disabled people is disgusting.
You fail to realize that the church was under a lot of political pressure to denounce socialism. This was because the church was unfortunately unified with the state. On a side note this is why church and state should be separate. Because when they are together the church always ends up being a tool of the state. Isnt it interesting how the church condemned the idea of a living wage and universal education yet it NEVER condemned the corrupt and decadent aristocracy. It makes me sick that the aristocrats and kings were hoarding their wealth, committing adultery, drunkeness, and even murder ( while the people were starving) yet the church never called them out on it. Hmmm. So dont try to appeal to a few encyclicals because your argument doesnt hold any water. Oh and before you start l, encyclicals are NOT always infallible. The one you cited is not therefore Catholics are free to disagree with it.

Socialism works better than capitalism. History has proven this. In a lassez faire market the wealth always pools into the hands of the very few. Ofcourse their greed ends up to be their undoing because by hoarding their wealth and not paying their workers this renders the people unable to purchase the goods and services of these aformentioned greedy corporations. So they go out of business and are forced to lay off all their workers which just increases poverty and expedites the collapse of the economy.
You have to have a better understanding of the economy. You have a very limited understanding of socialism. In fact its downright flawed.

 

[DiZent]

The artist does deserve to get paid for their work. The copyright is there to protect intellectual property. I use legal download sites and pay for what I purchase.

I tried one of the “free” music file sharing programs (forget which one but it was not Napster) once and only once. As a previous poster mentioned, it took a lot of time & effort to get something with any quality. And many of the download sites were ridden with viruses, trojans, spyware, worms, etc. Not worth the risk.

I used Wal-mart’s music download service briefly - did not like the WMA format. To their credit, Wal-mart’s download license allowed me 10 copies of each download for personal use (this included copy on PC, mp3 and CD - so if I made a CD to give to a friend - IT WAS LEGAL - up to 9 times!! To their discredit, when my computer crashed they basically said “tough luck, you have to buy the songs again”. I had “backed up” the WMA license, but it did not work when I replaced the hard drive. Wal-mart discontinued their music download service a few years ago.

I buy all of my music from ITunes now. ITunes allows you to have 5 copies - your registered devices are “shared”. iCloud made it much more accessible.

I believe that one personal archive copy of any purchased recording is allowable. Sharing that personal copy is not allowed. Ripping music from a purchased CD to your device is NOT allowed. IMO, this is unreasonably restrictive and unenforceable. Discourages CD sales & gives iTunes & other legal download services an advantage.

 

[unstoppable_II]

…
You have to have a better understanding of the economy. You have a very limited understanding of socialism. In fact its downright flawed.

OK. Let’s start from the beginning. Explain what you think socialism is.

 

[tafan]

someperson555:

If you buy something ( or a copy of something) then it is rightfully yours to do with as you wish.

…

someperson555:

These things belong to the people as a whole ( or God) therefore no man can rightfully " own" anything.

I am confused as to your logic.

Please explain how you reconcile the above two statements.