I want to know your thoughts on file sharing

JadeTigress

Senior Member
Aug 15, 2006
1,150
96
Herrin, IL
✟9,414.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Libertarian
If it's one of my favorite bands or movies EVAR, then I'll pay for the CD because I want them to have the money.

Otherwise, I steal everything else. And yes, I call it stealing in regular conversation. Why sugarcoat it? I know it's stealing, but I really don't care.

Most of what I download is music and inappropriate content anyway. When I download a movie, it's something that I can't find to rent or is otherwise going to be a hassle for me to get a hold of. I sometimes have a hard time finding a torrent for that stuff, anyway. And I'm certainly not going to fork over $50 or $100 or more just to get a copy of a movie that I can't find anywhere else, when I'm probably only ever going to watch it one time.
 
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
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.
How is the artist not losing money? Just because you aren't the target audience doesn't mean the artist isn't losing money. Every copy out there that hasn't been paid for is money the artist didn't make.

its not really theft, because if the product is only being copied and not physically stolen.
Wow. Just wow.

Let's live the dream here for a moment. Imagine this:
Awesome_Frog writes a potential super massive hit. Every copy sells and makes you money. Millions of copies are sold. Awesome_Frog becomes a multi-millionnaire. Life is sweet :)

Reality in Awesome_Frog's world: Awesome_Frog writes a potential super massive hit. A few copies are sold but people don't buy it because they can copy it. It's not theft. Awesome_Frog is left flipping burgers. Life sucks.
 
Upvote 0

DataPacRat

Truthseeker
Feb 25, 2011
137
3
Niagara
Visit site
✟7,783.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Others
From Cory Doctorow:

Cory said:
For me -- for pretty much every writer -- the big problem isn't piracy, it's obscurity (thanks to Tim O'Reilly for this great aphorism). Of all the people who failed to buy this book today, the majority did so because they never heard of it, not because someone gave them a free copy. Mega-hit best-sellers in science fiction sell half a million copies -- in a world where 175,000 attend the San Diego Comic Con alone, you've got to figure that most of the people who "like science fiction" (and related geeky stuff like comics, games, Linux, and so on) just don't really buy books. I'm more interested in getting more of that wider audience into the tent than making sure that everyone who's in the tent bought a ticket to be there.

...

So ebooks sell print books. Every writer I've heard of who's tried giving away ebooks to promote paper books has come back to do it again. That's the commercial case for doing free ebooks.

Now, onto the artistic case. It's the twenty-first century. Copying stuff is never, ever going to get any harder than it is today (or if it does, it'll be because civilization has collapsed, at which point we'll have other problems). Hard drives aren't going to get bulkier, more expensive, or less capacious. Networks won't get slower or harder to access. If you're not making art with the intention of having it copied, you're not really making art for the twenty-first century. There's something charming about making work you don't want to be copied, in the same way that it's nice to go to a Pioneer Village and see the olde-timey blacksmith shoeing a horse at his traditional forge. But it's hardly, you know, contemporary. I'm a science fiction writer. It's my job to write about the future (on a good day) or at least the present. Art that's not supposed to be copied is from the past.

Finally, let's look at the moral case. Copying stuff is natural. It's how we learn (copying our parents and the people around us). My first story, written when I was six, was an excited re-telling of Star Wars, which I'd just seen in the theater. Now that the Internet -- the world's most efficient copying machine -- is pretty much everywhere, our copying instinct is just going to play out more and more. There's no way I can stop my readers, and if I tried, I'd be a hypocrite: when I was 17, I was making mix-tapes, photocopying stories, and generally copying in every way I could imagine. If the Internet had been around then, I'd have been using it to copy as much as I possibly could.

There's no way to stop it, and the people who try end up doing more harm than piracy ever did. The record industry's ridiculous holy war against file-sharers (more than 20,000 music fans sued and counting!) exemplifies the absurdity of trying to get the food-coloring out of the swimming pool. If the choice is between allowing copying or being a frothing bully lashing out at anything he can reach, I choose the former.
 
Upvote 0

Schneiderman

Senior Veteran
Aug 9, 2008
3,653
262
34
Long Island, New York
Visit site
✟12,466.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
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.

Wow. Way to completely, utterly miss the point.

A song is not a car. A car is a physical object that has value in and of itself, and when a car is stolen the owner actually loses that value and is deprived of the use of the car. A song is composed of information with no intrinsic value. When a song is downloaded, nobody loses anything. And my post specifically addressed the flaws of the argument that the owner loses income- no, the owner does NOT always lose income. That was the whole point of my post.

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?

Again, you completely and utterly missed the point of my post. A television is not a song. A television is a physical object that has value in and of itself, and when a television is stolen the owner actually loses that value and is deprived of the use of the television. When a song is downloaded, nobody loses anything. Any my post specifically addressed the flaws of the argument that the owner loses income- no, the owner does NOT always lose income. That was the whole point of my post.

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

No, YOU should look it up in the dictionary. First of all there is no such crime as "stealing". Instead there is larceny, burglary and robbery. Downloading music is none of the above.
 
Upvote 0

lawtonfogle

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
Apr 20, 2005
11,585
350
35
✟13,892.00
Faith
Christian
How is the artist not losing money? Just because you aren't the target audience doesn't mean the artist isn't losing money. Every copy out there that hasn't been paid for is money the artist didn't make.


Wow. Just wow.

Let's live the dream here for a moment. Imagine this:
Awesome_Frog writes a potential super massive hit. Every copy sells and makes you money. Millions of copies are sold. Awesome_Frog becomes a multi-millionnaire. Life is sweet :)

Reality in Awesome_Frog's world: Awesome_Frog writes a potential super massive hit. A few copies are sold but people don't buy it because they can copy it. It's not theft. Awesome_Frog is left flipping burgers. Life sucks.


Awesome_Frog writes a massive hit. Bungle_Bear writes an even better one. People don't buy Awesome_Frog's because they all bought Bungle_Bear's instead. If causing sells to not occur is a form of theft, then Bungle_Bear is in trouble.


In the end, causing sells to not occur is not a form of theft. There is a different crime, copyright infringement, but it is not theft.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skavau
Upvote 0

supersoldier71

Sinner, saved by Grace
Jan 19, 2011
676
184
Far, far away from home
✟10,260.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I stopped file sharing because:
A: It seems to me that whoever is selling the product has the right to sell it.
B: Entertainment items are luxury items.
C: If I won't steal bread when I'm hungry, why would I steal a luxury that I can afford?
D: Thou shall not steal.
E: If you can't trust me for a dollar, you can't trust me.
 
Upvote 0

Paulos23

Never tell me the odds!
Mar 23, 2005
8,172
4,444
Washington State
✟311,774.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I know artists and writers that make stuff to copy, but that is to get their name out. Most of the time I try and buy the music I listen to and the books I read because I know the artist and authors are not getting that much anyway. I am not going to steal from them for their hard work (and it is hard work).

An interesting aside to this is webcomics. Most of these are free and are only supported by donations and/or selling of books and product. If there was a way to do that with music and books I would support it. But until there is I will support the artist.
 
Upvote 0

Skavau

Ode to the Forgotten Few
Sep 6, 2007
5,823
665
England
✟41,497.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
It is all well and good to oppose file sharing of copyrighted material, but please to everyone who does oppose it - stop labelling it as theft. It is not. If I enter a shop with a cloning device, pick up an apple, clone it and then walk off with it I have not stolen anything. The original apple is still there.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

selfinflikted

Under Deck
Jul 13, 2006
11,441
786
44
✟24,014.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Hm. Personally, I don't download files from P2P servers or anywhere else when I haven't paid for them. I used to do this, when Napster first came out (I'd set up a queue for download before bed at night, and wake up with 20-30 new songs by morning! Ah, the dialup days.), but always felt guilty for doing it. So, I stopped. I just don't feel right about it. I wouldn't try to stop someone else from doing what they want as far as digital copies are concerned, but I just know that for me, I can no longer bring myself to do it. I'm not sure how I feel about it, from a moral standpoint.
 
Upvote 0
A

Awesome_Frog

Guest
How is the artist not losing money? Just because you aren't the target audience doesn't mean the artist isn't losing money. Every copy out there that hasn't been paid for is money the artist didn't make.
Back when I did downlaod, I did it because I couldn't afford it. The artist never lost money from me, because I never had the money to give them. Potential money dosen't exist. The artist either sold copies or not.


Let's live the dream here for a moment. Imagine this:
Awesome_Frog writes a potential super massive hit. Every copy sells and makes you money. Millions of copies are sold. Awesome_Frog becomes a multi-millionnaire. Life is sweet :)
Actually, I would barely see any of the money from the millions sold. After my recording costs, there are advertising costs, equipment costs, the record company would then take their cut, and on it goes.
Musicians make most of their money touring, doing interviews, guest appearances, and through merchandise, such as shirts and other novelties. I'm friends and know a few bands in the my local metal and hardcore scene. Its an artist's life, and I'm a quasi artist myself. You usually don't get rich off this stuff.

Reality in Awesome_Frog's world: Awesome_Frog writes a potential super massive hit. A few copies are sold but people don't buy it because they can copy it. It's not theft. Awesome_Frog is left flipping burgers. Life sucks.
That's the reality of art. Though, if I made a hit, I would be touring and making money back that way.
 
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Awesome_Frog writes a massive hit. Bungle_Bear writes an even better one. People don't buy Awesome_Frog's because they all bought Bungle_Bear's instead. If causing sells to not occur is a form of theft, then Bungle_Bear is in trouble.


In the end, causing sells to not occur is not a form of theft. There is a different crime, copyright infringement, but it is not theft.
That's called competition and my song sold more copies. In my scenario somebody else publishes Awesome_Frog's song and no sales are made. Not the same thing :doh:
 
Upvote 0

s1mp13m4n

Newbie
Mar 9, 2011
952
54
Both
✟9,107.00
Country
Comoros
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Independence-Party
I am wondering....and I realize this is major gray area and there will be opinions for and against, however hear goes. Lets say you are born again, you read your Bible, pray, go to church, etc...you know the deal. Lets also say that you make enough money to pay bills and live but not enough for fun items like going to a movie or buy many cd's, etc. If you are "borrowing" a Christian music cd online that may help you grow closer to God.....is that still wrong? Is it still wrong to get a copy of a copy of lets say a MercyMe cd when you can not afford to buy itand its songs may help you in your relationship with God? :)
None of this is a new issue because it has been going on for many yeras. Think about the VCR debate from the 70s and 80s about copying movies and tv shows and the cassette tape copy debate from the same era. None of this is new, it is just easier now due to the use of technology. :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Wow. Way to completely, utterly miss the point.

A song is not a car. A car is a physical object that has value in and of itself, and when a car is stolen the owner actually loses that value and is deprived of the use of the car. A song is composed of information with no intrinsic value. When a song is downloaded, nobody loses anything. And my post specifically addressed the flaws of the argument that the owner loses income- no, the owner does NOT always lose income. That was the whole point of my post.



Again, you completely and utterly missed the point of my post. A television is not a song. A television is a physical object that has value in and of itself, and when a television is stolen the owner actually loses that value and is deprived of the use of the television. When a song is downloaded, nobody loses anything. Any my post specifically addressed the flaws of the argument that the owner loses income- no, the owner does NOT always lose income. That was the whole point of my post.



No, YOU should look it up in the dictionary. First of all there is no such crime as "stealing". Instead there is larceny, burglary and robbery. Downloading music is none of the above.
Substitute a CD from a shop and a boxed software application above. Now we have a physical object in the mix. And that's what we're really talking about, isn't it? Is it acceptable to steal (or do you prefer burglarize?) a physical copy of the song or code?
 
Upvote 0

selfinflikted

Under Deck
Jul 13, 2006
11,441
786
44
✟24,014.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Substitute a CD from a shop and a boxed software application above. Now we have a physical object in the mix. And that's what we're really talking about, isn't it? Is it acceptable to steal (or do you prefer burglarize?) a physical copy of the song or code?

But technically, it's the same thing as a digital copy, isn't it? Even though there's a physical medium by which to transfer the merchandise (OS, music, whatever) from the seller to the buyer, the CDs or DVDs on which the merchandise is stored are not what the buyer is paying for - they are paying for the digital copy found on the medium. Same thing, if you ask me.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Skavau

Ode to the Forgotten Few
Sep 6, 2007
5,823
665
England
✟41,497.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Substitute a CD from a shop and a boxed software application above. Now we have a physical object in the mix. And that's what we're really talking about, isn't it? Is it acceptable to steal (or do you prefer burglarize?) a physical copy of the song or code?
No, because that would be denying someone of their object in favour of your fun. Grabbing a file from the internet is the literal equivalent of cloning an item in reality. It is understandable to not agree with file sharing, but please, don't misrepresent people by calling it theft when it is not.
 
Upvote 0