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... 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.

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?

 

[Smurf]

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?

It doesn't. And it doesn't have to. If I like a band I might (rarely - and then it's only the small bands) buy a cd of theirs, but I'll go to their concerts if they come to town, and more often than not I'll buy sheet music or chord charts for their songs from them.

I have a pair of shorts made purely out of patches with logos of bands (and other groups that can only be described as 'stuff') that I like and want to support.

Most of the bands I really like arn't available on any file sharing networks, or are very difficult to get. I upload songs of these bands all the time, this helps them more than it hurts them too, because then when they go to another town there will be people there who have actually heard of them and they'll go to their shows.

I'm not hurting them at all, I'm not even taking away 'potential profit' because I'm sure as hell not going to buy music from a band that I don't even know if I'll like or not.
Like I said; I support them, in many ways.

 

[Pengwuino]

Buying CD's negates the threads purpose. Going to their concerts also does not count because it is a disconnect from the thread.

Putting patches of logos on your shorts does not 'put food on the table' for them.

Your also only talking about no-name bands. Now, although there probably the better bands, this is not a thread on "feeling right about downloading music from groups that suck compared to good bands". If your bands were popular and near-household names, you sound like you would have a different opinion. Unfortunately, this new opinion would be irrelevant as is the idea that its good because its a no-name band. The entire purpose is to show whether file-sharing as a whole, is immoral or not on the scales that its done today.

 

[Smurf]

The entire purpose is to show whether file-sharing as a whole, is immoral or not on the scales that its done today.

*sigh* Ok. Then why is it?

 

[loseyourname]

Well, I guess we're just proving here how complicated matters of ethics really are. In many cases, file-sharing can almost certainly be considered immoral. In many other cases, it probably cannot be. In some cases, it is very ambiguous. For instance:

My roommate downloaded Hotel Rwanda. She had seen it in theaters, but I had not. Neither of us is going to buy the DVD. Whoever made this movie did receive money from her, but not from me. They only received money from her once, while she saw the movie twice. What is the moral status of each of our acts? I'd say this one is pretty ambiguous.

My ex-girlfriend almost never buys CDs anymore. She probably owns upwards of 500 albums that she never paid for and never will. She does go to concerts to see these bands, and she has discovered new bands this way, but even so, she has pirated hundreds of albums without paying. I'd say this is clearly unethical.

I downloaded a DVD rip of Revenge of the Sith and have watched it many times. However, I also saw it several times in theaters and will buy the DVD when it is released. I just don't want to wait. I'd say this one is fine.

On another note, what about this situation:

I used to own hundreds of CDs that I bought in stores. Over the years, however, I have copied all of them to burned CDs and sold the originals back to record stores. Is there anything unethical about doing this? What about all of the copies I have made for friends, my little sisters, and my mother?

 

[Pengwuino]

*sigh* Ok. Then why is it?

Well if we look at loseyourname's examples, we can see why its immoral in my mind in a majority of cases.

Lets set up loseyournames examples as numbers. The hotel rwanda is case #1, next is #2 with the ex-girlfriend, revenge of the sith is #3, and the final one is #4.

#1, ambiguous as this is somewhat equivalent to having a friend over to watch a movie.

#2, as per my argument, is VERY unethical. You are not supporting anyone and you getting incredible entertainment for none of your own money. THIS case is where i see huge immoral value. THIS is also the case i see with a huge majority of my friends and family members. I've seen cd-case after cd-case full of copied cds. Fully enjoyed, not a cent to the maker.

#3, ambiguous but dealing with moral relativism as ill explain later

#4, this is counterfeiting, plain and simple. Your actually profiting while keeping 100% of your entertainment value. Giving to your family is another problem dealing with moral relativism.

As for the idea of moral relativism, we're really showing signs of "well, i just did it for a few friends, its not wrong" or "it was small so its not really wrong". Is stealing just a little money ok? Is going into a store and stealing the cheaper tv ok? To me, when it comes to right vs wrong, it doesn't matter on what kind of scale its done. I would hope that a lot of people would agree with me here...

Plus the reality of file-sharing is that a LOT of people are garnering tens of thousands of dollars worth of software for free. I use to be rather experienced in the real world of "file-sharing" when things were still done on small scales in IRC channels and such. Ask most people on the scene back then and there was no question that it was not only illegal, but wrong as well. There were pieces of software for download that costs upwards of $10,000 in real life. It was a digital black market, plain and simple and we all knew it. I personally never downloaded anything over $200 because to me, at some point, it was just crossing a line to me. But meh... i dunno... other people can think its OK i suppose.

 

[Smurf]

Huh...

Ok, now that we've all heard each other viewpoints. Why don't we address the actualy question, which is: How do we address file-sharing and how should it be controlled if at all?

 

[Pengwuino]

That wasnt the question at all. Its if its moral or not.

People should be allowed to trade all they want... really hard to justify otherwise because its simply a mode of transportation.

 

[Smurf]

That wasnt the question at all. Its if its moral or not.

That's the same question. I'm just putting it into a context. What should a moral society do about it?

 

[Pengwuino]

A moral society would shut it down. A free society would leave it open lol

 

[loseyourname]

#4, this is counterfeiting, plain and simple. Your actually profiting while keeping 100% of your entertainment value. Giving to your family is another problem dealing with moral relativism.

Sorry for not responding to this until now. I want to take a deeper look at this case study. Forget about making copies for my little sisters and let us focus on copying CDs I had already bought and selling back the originals.

We have to take into consideration everything surrounding the case; put it into perspective, so to speak. We'll simplify things for the sake of illustration as well. First, we'll say that I originally spent $15 per CD, which is probably pretty close to accurate. When I sold them back, I received, on average, $3 per CD. My act of selling back does not affect the record companies or the artists, as they do not have to give any money to me. It is the record store that does, so we'll consider only the consequences to them. First off, let us ask why they buy back CDs in the first place. So they can sell them again, right? We'll say, for the sake of illustration, that they sell each CD that I sell to them, on average, for $6. This gives them a net revenue from each CD they originally sold me of $18. This is more than the $15 net revenue they would have received for each CD had I never sold them back. I also bought the blank CDs from the same store, so they made a little more money that way as well.

What this means is that 1) The record companies and artists lose nothing from my act, and 2) The record stores gain from my act. Furthermore, you can't say that I've profited from this act, since my own net revenue is -$12 per CD. So what is it that makes this act immoral?

Note: I'm basing 'morality' on my own personal conception that any action is immoral only if it harms someone.

 

[Brady]

I think it's immoral because if the artist didn't create it, then I wouldn't be enjoying it. I'm willing to pay a couple bucks for something that I really want. It's not like I want every movie in the world or every song, there's a few that I really want, I go to iTunes and buy it legally.

 

[delton]

Micheal Moore said that filesharing is moral as long as people are not selling things and making money. Therefore I did not fell I had been immoral when I downloaded his documentary Fahrenheit 911. However, I respect other musicians that may not want there files to be shared or their movies to be pirated onto the internet before they come out . I think most bands, however, feel that they do very well monetarily from their bussiness, and do not mind their art and opinions to be shared. For this reason, I find file sharing to be moral in most cases.

P.S : this is a very tricky issue and I myself have had many second thoughts on my ideas.

 

[Pengwuino]

Micheal Moore said that filesharing is moral as long as people are not selling things and making money. Therefore I did not fell I had been immoral when I downloaded his documentary Fahrenheit 911.

Well this is one of the special cases. He explicitely told people that they can share it across P2P networking and such.

I think most bands, however, feel that they do very well monetarily from their bussiness, and do not mind their art and opinions to be shared. For this reason, I find file sharing to be moral in most cases.

whoa wait just a minute. It is simply your opinion that they don't mind their cd's being shared. This is like saying that Best Buy makes a lot of money and that you think they would not mind their equipment being shared, thus stealing from them would be moral.

There are an increasing number of artists putting copy protections on their cds. Sometimes they come out and say they will... sometimes they don't say but it ends up being impossible to copy them (without some hacks or go-arounds). About 4 or 5 years ago, when I use to do this stuff, coming up to a cd that didnt copy with the simplest of software was unheard of! Now I am constantly getting people asking me why they can't copy this cd or that cd or why they can't find this cd online or that cd online.

 

[Antiphon]

Filesharing is stealing. In the case of music, you are stealing the right to hear
the music in exactly the same way as if you sneak into a concert without buying
a ticket.

That right, to let you listen, belongs to the music publisher and they will let
you listen for a few dollars.

The argument that "it's not really taking something becaue they still have it"
is false. They no longer have the money you should have paid them for hearing
the song. The song itself was never for sale, only the the right to hear it. When
you buy a CD, you are not (just) buying a piece of plastic. You are buying the
right to hear the content as many times as you want. Further, just because you buy
a CD doesn't mean you can play your CD for 100,000 people. They have not
purchased the rights you have.


This filesharing is like the lilliputians piling onto gulliver. The result will be
that there will be no publishing houses to distribute music and therefore
no way for artists to get paid for their craft, and therefore a dramatic
reduction in the number of people who can make a living playing music!

Is that what you really want?

 

[delton]

Yea... I've changed my mind and I agree it's definently immoral, not to mention illegal in the US