I want to know your thoughts on file sharing

[s1mp13m4n]

Hello everyone. I am not trying to start a flame war, so just know that is not my goal here. However I think this will be a touchy subject. How do you feel about file sharing, P2P, bit torrent, usenet, etc. For those who use it I would like your thoughts, for those who do not know what it is....well it is a way to get legal and illegal items such as movies, music, books, etc for your own use. In other words something you might pay $20 for at Amazon can be found for free if you know where to look. What are your thoughts on this for personal use only...for yourself? Again I am not trying to cause a debate, so mods pull this if it gets out of hand.

 

[The Nihilist]

I'm not sure it's all that different from recording a song off the radio.

 

[DataPacRat]

Here in Canada, thanks to the 'blank media levy' paid on such things as new DVDs, the money from which is redistributed to copyright-holders, file-sharing is quite legal and aboveboard.

 

[s1mp13m4n]

seriously, wow. It is not that way in the US. LOL In my opinion movies and music are way overpriced anywho which I feel adds to the file sharing problem.

 

[Beanieboy]

I believe that in principle, it's stealing. However, in my history, I usually Limewire songs that I already bought so that I have them on my computer at work. I also find that I find a song from a DJ that I have never heard, and then want to go out and buy their stuff.

However, if I buy the Black Eyed Peas CD, and upload it to my laptop, and my partner does the same, aren't we "file sharing"?

If CDs were better, like the BEP, I wouldn't mind forking over $15 for the CD, but I feel ripped off when there is one good song, and the rest is terrible.

 

[ChrisLeishy]

Hello everyone. I am not trying to start a flame war, so just know that is not my goal here. However I think this will be a touchy subject. How do you feel about file sharing, P2P, bit torrent, usenet, etc. For those who use it I would like your thoughts, for those who do not know what it is....well it is a way to get legal and illegal items such as movies, music, books, etc for your own use. In other words something you might pay $20 for at Amazon can be found for free if you know where to look. What are your thoughts on this for personal use only...for yourself? Again I am not trying to cause a debate, so mods pull this if it gets out of hand.

Here is what I think:

Exodus 20 kjv- (quoted for copyright purposes!)

9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
15Thou shalt not steal.
16Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
17Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.





If someone makes a product and it just so happens its in digital form, its sale is his reward for his work. If many people like his talents he may be rewarded well.. why not!


If you steal from the richest man in the world its the same as stealing from the poorest.


Many people file share cracked software to avoid paying for software licenses- Windows. Microsoft office, Photoshop, Autocad, Virus scanners etc


Same with artists royalties. They work hard and make something and rely on our honesty. If you look at their excessive wealth and decide exodus 20:15 can be safely broken because exodus 20:17 is already broken. You have begun a path of compromising your beliefs. That path is one the devil delights in us following.


I think a couple of bucks is a good investment for a clear conscience you cant be held to ransom with by the devil.


The part above is for pirate stuff you knowingly download to avoid paying for it like in the OP.




For the good people in the world who aren't greedy they make open source stuff for everyone's benefit. freely available stuff is no problem neither is public domain or products no longer in print after the allocated time, file sharing is ok.

file sharing is a great way to spread viruses and broadcast your personal details to hackers who make cracked software. Why do you think its there?


Copyright infringement- It gives opponents to Christianity a chance to point out hypocrisy.




Imagine it telling someone the morals of Christianity with a pirated operating system..lol


Sorry it doesn't work!

You can attempt to justify it a hundred ways but its still stolen and used illegally.

i am pretty sure the word "give" appears many more times in the bible than 'take' does.


Chris waits to get shot down for this post.

 

[s1mp13m4n]

Great reply. I certainly understand your point. Thanks for the help

 

[Schneiderman]

Somewhere, there is a balance between the entitlements of the people who create and own the rights to information, and consumers. In the US, there is currently a ridiculously huge bias toward "protecting" the people who own the rights.

File sharing can't be discussed in black and white. It's highly contextual. When an individual downloads a song, nothing is stolen: the owner does not suffer a loss. The argument is that the owner suffers a lack of income that is owed by the consumer for accessing the song. This argument fails to account for a number of difficulties, such as: the consumer may be exploring new tastes and might make a purchase in the future that otherwise would never have occurred. In this context, the illegal file sharing served as gainful free advertising for the owner. Or, the consumer might be downloading something that he would never have spent money on, meaning the owner neither loses existing property nor lacks income from a purchase because the consumer would not have purchased the song regardless of whether it was available for free. In both of these cases, nobody has actually been harmed, and the action can not be identified as "stealing".

On the other hand, if an individual is distributing music for profit without permission, then there is certainly an argument to be made that it is harmful to the owner, unethical, and worthy of the attention of the law.

 

[SoldierOfSoul]

I don't do it anymore, I use Napster and just stream music, if I want a CD i actually go and buy it!

 

[DataPacRat]

There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.

* Robert Anson Heinlein, Life-Line (1939)

 

[ChrisLeishy]

I don't do it anymore, I use Napster and just stream music, if I want a CD i actually go and buy it!

Good on you do you find you feel better for it?

regarding my post above I used to be the worst culprit of piracy.

I think if you sorta feel even slightly that its wrong and you do it it will create a situation of unrepentant sin that wil seperate you from god.

For movies I bought one of those apple tv things and just pay per watch.

I know full well i could get a ripped divx movie from pirate bay any time for free.
But for the sake of 4 bucks I know I will have compromised what I believe if I download movies with their copyright protection removed and placed on servers without the owners consent.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

File sharing can't be discussed in black and white. It's highly contextual. When an individual downloads a song, nothing is stolen: the owner does not suffer a loss. The argument is that the owner suffers a lack of income that is owed by the consumer for accessing the song. This argument fails to account for a number of difficulties, such as: the consumer may be exploring new tastes and might make a purchase in the future that otherwise would never have occurred. In this context, the illegal file sharing served as gainful free advertising for the owner.

What are you talking about? Are you trying to say that if I steal a car from a lot and then decide to buy one because I liked the way it drove that's fine because it's advertising? What rubbish. Theft is theft.

Or, the consumer might be downloading something that he would never have spent money on, meaning the owner neither loses existing property nor lacks income from a purchase because the consumer would not have purchased the song regardless of whether it was available for free.

Again, what are you talking about? How is the owner not losing? You just stole something! No matter what or how you steal something somebody still loses money. Theft is theft. If I steal a television that I can't afford (and therefore wouldn't buy) that's OK because I wouldn't have bought it under normal circumstances? What rubbish! Who wouldn't take a television if it were being offered free?

In both of these cases, nobody has actually been harmed, and the action can not be identified as "stealing".

In both cases it is stealing. Look it up in the dictionary.

 

[DataPacRat]

What are you talking about? Are you trying to say that if I steal a car from a lot and then decide to buy one because I liked the way it drove that's fine because it's advertising? What rubbish. Theft is theft.
Again, what are you talking about? How is the owner not losing? You just stole something! No matter what or how you steal something somebody still loses money. Theft is theft. If I steal a television that I can't afford (and therefore wouldn't buy) that's OK because I wouldn't have bought it under normal circumstances? What rubbish! Who wouldn't take a television if it were being offered free?
In both cases it is stealing. Look it up in the dictionary.

There is an important difference between stealing ordinary physical objects, like cars or televisions, and making unauthorized copies of files: in the former, the owner is deprived of the use of the object being stolen, while in the latter, they still retain their original copy and can do with it whatever they wish. The former sort of things are called 'rivalrous', while the latter are 'non-rivalrous', and are treated differently in law and in morality. This is why 'copyright infringement' is treated as a completely different crime from 'theft'.

What the law /should/ say about how such different things should be treated... is a topic all unto itself.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Here in Canada, thanks to the 'blank media levy' paid on such things as new DVDs, the money from which is redistributed to copyright-holders, file-sharing is quite legal and aboveboard.

Wow, you could get yourself in a lot of trouble for that comment! For a start the law actually only applies (if I remember rightly) to audio files. And you may only take a copy for personal use. It does not allow you to make a copy for distribution to others. Therefore any copy you make from a shared file is illegal.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

There is an important difference between stealing ordinary physical objects, like cars or televisions, and making unauthorized copies of files: in the former, the owner is deprived of the use of the object being stolen, while in the latter, they still retain their original copy and can do with it whatever they wish. The former sort of things are called 'rivalrous', while the latter are 'non-rivalrous', and are treated differently in law and in morality. This is why 'copyright infringement' is treated as a completely different crime from 'theft'.

What the law /should/ say about how such different things should be treated... is a topic all unto itself.

Copyright theft is a criminal act. The thief has deprived the owner of income no matter how you try to dress it up as inadvertent advertising. It may be a different crime under the law to theft of physical goods but it is still a crime.

 

[DataPacRat]

Wow, you could get yourself in a lot of trouble for that comment! For a start the law actually only applies (if I remember rightly) to audio files. And you may only take a copy for personal use. It does not allow you to make a copy for distribution to others. Therefore any copy you make from a shared file is illegal.

Let's just say that anyone in Canada is well-advised not to take legal advice from a random forum-poster, but to double-check the relevant law themselves. ("And to remember the eleventh commandment.")

 

[DataPacRat]

Copyright theft is a criminal act. The thief has deprived the owner of income no matter how you try to dress it up as inadvertent advertising. It may be a different crime under the law to theft of physical goods but it is still a crime.

Actually, it isn't always a crime. A given copyrighted item might have fallen into the public domain in another jurisdiction, which complicates matters. And even where an item is copyrighted, there are almost always 'fair use' or 'fair dealing' exemptions which allow for the legal use of a copyrighted item in one fashion or another.

And then, if you want, we can get into the whole debate over what the purpose of copyright law actually is, and whether current laws actually do fulfill that purpose... and, if they don't, whether it is moral to break an unjust law.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Let's just say that anyone in Canada is well-advised not to take legal advice from a random forum-poster, but to double-check the relevant law themselves. ("And to remember the eleventh commandment.")

Haha. Nicely done to imply that I'm wrong but not actually say so! Or maybe you were referring to your post saying that file-sharing is actually legal? Let me point you back to statute 80 of the Copyright Act. Go (re-)read it.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Actually, it isn't always a crime. A given copyrighted item might have fallen into the public domain in another jurisdiction, which complicates matters. And even where an item is copyrighted, there are almost always 'fair use' or 'fair dealing' exemptions which allow for the legal use of a copyrighted item in one fashion or another.

And then, if you want, we can get into the whole debate over what the purpose of copyright law actually is, and whether current laws actually do fulfill that purpose... and, if they don't, whether it is moral to break an unjust law.

That is such a lame get out. There may be exemptions and there may be fair use. Doesn't alter the fact that the basic tenet is that copyright infringement is a crime. Same as any other law! You even said it yourself "it isn't always a crime." But it is a crime

 

[Awesome_Frog]

I download from artists that admit to not caring, but usually those are the artists I end up buying music from in the long run because they tend to put allot of effort into their music and mostly just want to be heard.

For the most part I just buy my music and movies because I really do want to support the artist. I used to download all the time, but thanks to You tube and internet radio, I don't have to really.


I do agree that file sharing is a beast all of its own where its not really theft, because if the product is only being copied and not physically stolen.

The artist isn't losing money, because for the most part I wasn't a target for the product in the first place thanks to money issues.

We could argue that some people can afford it, but choose to download anyway, which I then point to both the market needing to figure out what exactly it is that its selling and what exactly its product is then.