Is Copyright Infringement Morally Equivalent to Stealing?

[Pengwuino]

So what do you guys think about file-sharings morality? Do you feel you are sharing with a hypothetical "neighbor" or do you feel your getting something you didnt pay for and it is wrong or do you think its somewhere in between?

And for technicalities, let's say its all copyrighted material and people do not delete their files and its a range of items from games to mp3s to movies.

 

[arildno]

It's a very good question; at the outset, I would think that a (somewhat) comparable situation is if we use a Xerox machine and copy a book which we then give to our friend.
Is this legal or not? I don't know..
Is this example truly comparable to the file-sharing example? I'm not too sure..

 

[sneez]

About the morality part,

How about this scenario. I purchase a license for some software. (lets disregard for a sec the terms of conditions of the licence). I have a friend who wants to use it and i let him use it on my computer. is that immoral? Let's say he lives far away and i let him account on my PC to use the software of the net. is that immoral? Than if i give him copy of that program so he can work without internet with my license is it immoral?

I think is against law but not immoral. Is going 75 on 55 highway immoral? Its a law witch community has put forth for one reason or another. Therefore, technically its breaking the law, but i don't see the immoral part of it...

 

[Smurf]

I think is against law but not immoral. Is going 75 on 55 highway immoral? Its a law witch community has put forth for one reason or another. Therefore, technically its breaking the law, but i don't see the immoral part of it...

Reckless endangerment seems pretty immoral to me. How is putting your own, and many other people's lives in unnecessary risk not immoral? Do you think drinking and driving isn't immoral either?

 

[Smurf]

So what do you guys think about file-sharings morality? Do you feel you are sharing with a hypothetical "neighbor" or do you feel your getting something you didnt pay for and it is wrong or do you think its somewhere in between?

And for technicalities, let's say its all copyrighted material and people do not delete their files and its a range of items from games to mp3s to movies.

The only difference I see between borowing your friend's CD, or playing a game on you're friend's XboX instead of buying your own, is the scale it takes part on. So if we are to say that file-sharing IS immoral, then can we agree that these simple acts are also immoral?

 

[sneez]

Driving over the speed limit is not immoral. Driving at all is imoral?

in germany one can go 120 mil/h and not endangering no one according to german law. Like i said its communitie's laws not some universal moral standard.

Absolutelly not immoral...

sneez

 

[dextercioby]

So what do you guys think about file-sharings morality?

Morality in itself is not an entirely objective matter and the "file-sharings morality" part sounds conspicuous enough for me.

Do you feel you are sharing with a hypothetical "neighbor" or do you feel your getting something you didnt pay for and it is wrong or do you think its somewhere in between?

I see syntax is not amoung your favorites.Maybe you should get a grammar book through p2p... :tongue2: I don't use such software and i don't know how it feels like.But I'm a really bad person myself and wouldn't share my comp.files with anyone,but i'd surely ask for something.A movie,some music,a book.

And for technicalities, let's say its all copyrighted material and people do not delete their files and its a range of items from games to mp3s to movies.

I would delete the files i'd take,unless i'd be getting something really useful.Or at least move them from the shared folder to the unshared one.

Yeah,i'm an egoistic person.

Daniel.

P.S.As for morality,maybe something really bad,a movie or something,that would propagate from one comp through another.But the act itself is very unselfish.

 

[Pengwuino]

lol what is this

is there so many shades of gray that you can't even take up a perliminary position?

 

[dextercioby]

I adressed the point for most of my post.Some other folks decided to talk about (German) motorways.:tongue2:

Daniel.

 

[Jameson]

Do people consider file sharing immoral because it is against the law? Most likely yes.

It is easy to associate right and wrong with the laws of one's nation, but I hope that we as humans can think beyond words written by others.

Now, is it wrong, when someone sells a product for x amount of money, to simply download it without paying any money? I would say yes. Do I do it? Of course.

Why? Because I think there is no reason why someone needs to charge $10 to sell a CD. It is simply ridiculous. Two wrongs don't make a right, but I don't have any guilt over downloading music.

I usually end up buying music from the artists I really appreciate in the end.

 

[Smurf]

Driving over the speed limit is not immoral. Driving at all is imoral?

in germany one can go 120 mil/h and not endangering no one according to german law. Like i said its communitie's laws not some universal moral standard.

Absolutelly not immoral...

Law is (usually) based on morals though. This paticular one is based on the idea that at a certain point you're going fast enough that you're creating an unreasonable risk for yourself, your passengers, and other people on the motorway. It's not immoral because it's against the law, it's immoral because your endangering people. Just because there's a law against it doesn't mean it can't be immoral too.

Having said that, this has absolutely no relation to file sharing so we should get off the topic.

I have absolutely no qualms about file sharing and do it all the time. It doesn't hurt anyone physically or (most of the time) financially so I don't see why I should feel guilty about it.

 

[Kerrie]

I don't believe file sharing is immoral, however, natural consequences with downloading files on my computer have made my whole system crash, therefore I won't download files for that reason alone.

 

[Smurf]

You can pretty much look at it three ways (that I can think of):

1. Stealing is wrong no matter what. File sharing is stealing, so file sharing is wrong.
-This is entirely a moral outlook (opinion) and so cannot nor does require any argument to back it up. It just is, and some people feel that way so we can't force them to accept file sharing... yet.

--
2. File sharing is taking profits away from hard working artists and recording companies and is actively harming their lifestyle.
3. File sharing is not negatively affecting the financial situation of the people involved in any significant way.

This is where all the debating happens because there's a whole bunch of evidence for both sides, as is becoming apparent in the US supreme court case MGM v. Grokster (even though it's a vicarious liability case them lawyers are still bringing up stuff about file sharing).


Edit:

4. File sharing is just too dangerous.

 

[Delta]

2. File sharing is taking profits away from hard working artists and recording companies and is actively harming their lifestyle.

Then again it can be a good thing.

Most highly commercial groups make money through tours, royalties and merchandise.

For those little known groups file sharing can be a good thing. Would we of seen David Bernal does his thing in the Golf GTI ad and a few movies if it weren't for the publicity of his videos over email?

And what about the music that's too rare to find in your local shop or even on import. The remixes, white labels, world music.

The other good thing is that it can introduce new bands. Say you want to find some jungle jazz artists, search for them download a few tracks and before you know it you've got a new group to get into.

Finally to finish with, shouldn't all music be free?

 

[Smurf]

And these are the arguments often presented by supporters of #3.

 

[chroot]

1) Copying copyrighted music is definitely illegal.

2) Listening to an artist and not paying for it is unethical by most ethical standards. "Immoral" may be too strong a word.

3) The middlemen in the music business (the labels and the RIAA) are really no longer necessary, and add little value to the industry. At best, their only vestigial purpose is marketing. At worst, they screw the consumer and the artist alike.

4) Music can be and therefore should be sold for much lower prices. Filesharing was developed because the consumer market was trying to realign price with demand.

5) There are many ways to share files that do not make you vulnerable to spyware, viruses, and other malware.

- Warren

 

[motai]

1. Stealing is wrong no matter what. File sharing is stealing, so file sharing is wrong.
-This is entirely a moral outlook (opinion) and so cannot nor does require any argument to back it up. It just is, and some people feel that way so we can't force them to accept file sharing... yet.

Is it really stealing though? The original owner of the media isn't having his/her files taken away from him/her, but rather the files are being copied from one system to another, leaving the original intact.

 

[chroot]

Is it really stealing though? The original owner of the media isn't having his/her files taken away from him/her, but rather the files are being copied from one system to another, leaving the original intact.

Give me a break motai, there's more to theft than just tangible goods.

- Warren

 

[Kerrie]

1) Copying copyrighted music is definitely illegal.

2) Listening to an artist and not paying for it is unethical by most ethical standards. "Immoral" may be too strong a word.

3) The middlemen in the music business (the labels and the RIAA) are really no longer necessary, and add little value to the industry. At best, their only vestigial purpose is marketing. At worst, they screw the consumer and the artist alike.

4) Music can be and therefore should be sold for much lower prices. Filesharing was developed because the consumer market was trying to realign price with demand.

5) There are many ways to share files that do not make you vulnerable to spyware, viruses, and other malware.

- Warren

chroot, you bring up some solid and logical points. the whole reason file sharing over the 'net started was probably due to the outrageous prices of CD's the record companies were charging. did anyone jump on the bandwagon for that rebate offered for anyone who bought a CD a couple of years ago? i got my $20 out of it. i think if the price of CD's came below $10.00/each (not for double albums and special releases necessarily), it might enable more people to buy the music they love and still support the artists, especially if the middlemen were cut out.

 

[dextercioby]

Give me a break motai, there's more to theft than just tangible goods.

- Warren

I'm not an expert,but this is called "intellectual theft",like plagiating a book and redistributing (not necessarily selling) it as if you were the author.

Daniel.

 

[juvenal]

1) Copying copyrighted music is definitely illegal.

2) Listening to an artist and not paying for it is unethical by most ethical standards. "Immoral" may be too strong a word.

3) The middlemen in the music business (the labels and the RIAA) are really no longer necessary, and add little value to the industry. At best, their only vestigial purpose is marketing. At worst, they screw the consumer and the artist alike.

4) Music can be and therefore should be sold for much lower prices. Filesharing was developed because the consumer market was trying to realign price with demand.

5) There are many ways to share files that do not make you vulnerable to spyware, viruses, and other malware.

- Warren

I mostly agree with 1, 2, and 5 (there are gray areas like taping a song off the radio), but not really 3 and 4 as much. Even if the sole purpose of the music industry were marketing, the value of that is not to be underestimated, therefore 4 does not necessarily logically follow.

Can music be sold for lower prices? Probably. Should it? I'm not sure. You could say the same thing for good number of other consumer products too. As a consumer, if you don't like the price of something, you don't buy it AND you don't steal it.

Also - from what I understand, labels often use a portion of their profits generated by their hit artists to help develop their no-names and up-and-comers. Most of the artists they develop or attempt to develop actually fail, and/or don't generate any profit, so the industry does assume risk.

 

[Pengwuino]

I agree, its a huge mistake to think marketing is not a big deal anymore. Look at the "pop" music culture. These people are practically pre-packaged marvels of marketing. They suck and no ones ever heard of them but record companies make them out to be the greatest thing since sliecd bread.

Also, i strongly disagree with #4. Do you REALLY think filesharing is used to re-align prices? I think, with all my experiences with humans, that file-sharing is used entirely to get what you don't pay for. A few years ago id look through all my friends cd's and they were ALL burnt cds. If you have the capabilities to get something for free, people will do it with very little thought as to its morality as long as one or two people are saying there is some sort of moral justification to it (no matter how far off base it may be).

 

[Pengwuino]

Is it really stealing though? The original owner of the media isn't having his/her files taken away from him/her, but rather the files are being copied from one system to another, leaving the original intact.

Maybe by law it isnt... that's not what i wanted this thread to be about (because laws are laws and they can be interpretted in any way imaginable). However, morality, or ethics, or whatever you want to call it, has a "feeling" to it in my view.

Disconnect yourself from the hatred of the music industry (and every industry file sharing represents because file-sharing goes way beyond music) and just think about it. Your getting something that you didnt pay for that other people did pay for.

On a side note, the idea that file-sharing should be allowed because cd's are overpriced is a horrible justification. Thats like saying if you feel TV's are too overpriced, that you need to break into your local best buy and steal a 40" LCD TV.

 

[False Prophet]

I wouldn't say it's "stealing" because you're not taking something away.

A CD costs $14.67 USD after taxes at Best Buy. That's more than I make in an hour so I'm not buying it if I have a house to pay for! Linkin Park & their label didn't get their money.

I download the songs on high speed internet that costs $30.00/month. Linkin Park & their label still didn't get their money.

In EITHER case I wasn't buying the CD. The stealing logic I think is when people think that since you are downloading it then you're not paying for it so it's stealing but you wouldn't have paid for it anyway so the net change in the musician's pocket is 0. Of course everyone is doing this so it makes many net changes of zero instead of positive net changes which ultimatly makes it wrong because the musicians aren't paid as much but it's not "stealing". Maybe we can call it harmfully impacting the music industry instead. Highly paid musicians make less off their songs now thanks to tech. but then more up and coming artists can get known thanks to tech. as was suggested earlier in the thread so it could even be called leveling the playing field. I'm not sure what to call it just not "stealing"!

I kind of think it is wrong to download music for free but so many people do and don't require justification! It's like the one thing, kinda like speeding that everyone does they don't feel the need to justify, myself included! These things are wrong but people know they're not perfect!

 

[Smurf]

On a side note, the idea that file-sharing should be allowed because cd's are overpriced is a horrible justification. Thats like saying if you feel TV's are too overpriced, that you need to break into your local best buy and steal a 40" LCD TV.

Actually, it's more like breaking into your local factory, stealing the plans for a 40" LCD TV and building your own... just easier. If you steal a TV the store actively loses material wealth (the TV). If you download music the musician doesn't lose anything, you just copy it. The only argument you can make for it being stealing is to say you're stealing 'potential' wealth because you could have given them money for it instead of getting it for free. However there's two problems with the argument, firstly a lot of downloaders wouldn't buy the CD if they couldn't download it. And second, it's really the uploaders who are committing the injustice because they're the ones providing the 'potential profit' for free. The downloaders are more accessories after the fact than anything else.

 

[Pengwuino]

Actually, it's more like breaking into your local factory, stealing the plans for a 40" LCD TV and building your own... just easier. If you steal a TV the store actively loses material wealth (the TV). If you download music the musician doesn't lose anything, you just copy it. The only argument you can make for it being stealing is to say you're stealing 'potential' wealth because you could have given them money for it instead of getting it for free. However there's two problems with the argument, firstly a lot of downloaders wouldn't buy the CD if they couldn't download it. And second, it's really the uploaders who are committing the injustice because they're the ones providing the 'potential profit' for free. The downloaders are more accessories after the fact than anything else.

Well i don't think that argument is correct because your not building the tv, your copying it (think replicator from startrek or something). I suppose "stealing" doesn't work here however. But as far as it being moral, it shouldn't matter if its stealing or not or what the technicalities are. It should only be about what you get and what you did to earn it. I feel everything you get should be earned or be generous gifts based off what other people earned.

 

[Averagesupernova]

I dunno. I have mixed feelings about the whole deal. Software is sold with a license. The user is expected to follow the copyright law.

Think of it this way. Suppose I purchase a lawnmower to mow my yard. My neighbor also has a yard and since I know him well and trust him I allow him to use my mower. Is it unethical and/or immoral to do this? I have 'screwed' the mower manufacturer out of a sale of a mower by sharing. Yes, the mower may wear out faster because twice the use and etc. but this scenario could be extended to hand tools and things that really don't 'wear' out. Considering how short of a time it is before software is obsolete, the tools and mower will probably hold value longer than the software. But, software that is copied can be used in more than one place at the same time where a hand tool that is shared cannot. But, with careful sharing and planning, software can be shared between users on the same machine. I personally think that most software manufacturers get paid well for their services.

 

[Smurf]

It should only be about what you get and what you did to earn it. I feel everything you get should be earned or be generous gifts based off what other people earned.

It is. Someone earned money, bought the CD, copied to his computer and then gave it to the world.

But that's not what you meant... is it? You need to redefine your explanation to be more specific.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yes but the "world" is immoral for getting it. They are all getting stuff they didnt earn from people they don't even know. I just don't see how someoen can justify the morality in coming to a computer and downloading a thousand cds and a hundred movies off of various IP addresses and then watching/listening to all of it. Its something for nothing off of someone you don't even know.

 

[Smurf]

I just don't see how someoen can justify the morality in coming to a computer and downloading a thousand cds and a hundred movies off of various IP addresses and then watching/listening to all of it.

I don't see how someone can call it a crime.

Its something for nothing off of someone you don't even know.

Why is a gift only justified by familiarity? Do you want to shut down charities as well?

 

[Pengwuino]

I don't see how someone can call it a crime.

Is anyone calling it a crime?

Why is a gift only justified by familiarity? Do you want to shut down charities as well?

Your GIVING to a charity, not sharing. You don't both claim ownership of a $5 bill. You don't counterfeit money and give it to charity.

 

[Smurf]

Is anyone calling it a crime?

Yeah, actually, a lot of people are. Almost every country in the world's government actually. And you're supporting them by calling it immoral.

Your GIVING to a charity, not sharing. You don't both claim ownership of a $5 bill. You don't counterfeit money and give it to charity.

Whatever, the point is why is familiarity necessary to share with someone?

 

[Pengwuino]

Yeah, actually, a lot of people are. Almost every country in the world's government actually. And you're supporting them by calling it immoral.

Getting drunk is considered by some to be immoral. Are you willing to attack those people too?

Whatever, the point is why is familiarity necessary to share with someone?

Because it no longer fits the idea of "sharing". You share with your neighbor, you share with your friend. You don't "share" with 80 million domain names and IP addresses. The REAL point here is if can you actually look at yourself in the mirror and say "i should be able to listen to any cd and watch any movie or use any piece of software or play any game simply because some unknown person possibly thousands of miles away put up a few bucks for it".

 

[Smurf]

Getting drunk is considered by some to be immoral. Are you willing to attack those people too?

That's exactly the point. No. I choose not the drink, but I don't force that on other people. You can drink if you want, so long as doing so doesn't endanger other people. I just might not want to hang around you. I'm not trying to force eveyone to start file-sharing.

Because it no longer fits the idea of "sharing". You share with your neighbor, you share with your friend. You don't "share" with 80 million domain names and IP addresses. The REAL point here is if can you actually look at yourself in the mirror and say "i should be able to listen to any cd and watch any movie or use any piece of software or play any game simply because some unknown person possibly thousands of miles away put up a few bucks for it".

Here, I'll go do it now. Ok, done. I don't see a reason why I shouldn't be able to. I support companies, bands and people who I want to support, in many ways. Sometimes I even buy retail CDs.

 

[Pengwuino]

How does that support them though? You get their music, they don't receive anything in return. One single person could buy a cd, the record company could make $15. He could then share it with a million people. How is this supporting the company and bands?