Is file sharing stealing? (beliefs, mission, point of view, devil)

[Fluffy]

A number of times on this forum, I have posted the view that file sharing is not stealing. I feel that I have backed up this view fully but other posters seem to ignore these arguments and simply state that file sharing is stealing without countering them. I realise I haven't given people time to reply on the latest thread but I figure this will be more productive.

Now I truly wish to be convinced of this view that everyone else seems to take for granted to the extent that they think it obvious and justification unnecessary. But to do so I need to see some justification. I need to see my arguments countered and destroyed.

So this is a plea for help from anyone on this forum, who takes the view that file sharing is stealing or who just wants to play devil's advocate, to have a one on one debate with me on this issue. My beliefs in this area are fairly tenuous so it shouldn't be too difficult to convince me otherwise but I would appreciate the attempt rather than just an opposing statement.

So if someone would like to get the ball rolling by justifying why file sharing is stealing...

[Saw11_2000]

I think it is classified as stealing because you are duplicating material. I don't think there's a problem when you let your friend borrow your CD/movie/book whatever, but when you make 30 copies of that DVD and start giving them out to everyone it's a problem.

[Fluffy]

I think it is classified as stealing because you are duplicating material. I don't think there's a problem when you let your friend borrow your CD/movie/book whatever, but when you make 30 copies of that DVD and start giving them out to everyone it's a problem.

The verb to steal, means the following: To take (the property of another) without right or permission. (from www.dictionary.com).

Firstly such a definition says nothing about duplicating material. It talks of taking without permission. The difference between the 2 is that if took a cd off the shelf of a shop without returning it then I would clearly be stealing. If I borrowed that cd from a library, copied it to my computer, and then returned it, it would not be stealing.

Furthermore, if we ignore this definition of stealing and decide that, as you say, the defining feature of theft is the "duplication of material (assumedly without permission)" then why did you then decide that there is a difference between lending a CD to one person and lending it to 30 people? Surely if it is wrong to do it 30 times, it is wrong to do it once?

Lastly, such a definition of stealing would include things such as photocopying of books, recording your favourite television programme or recording your favourite radio music.

[Melody]

Fluffy....

What is there to debate? I'd be happy to, but to everything you say, my response will be "you didn't pay for it, you don't own it, so it's stealing to just take it."

I'm willing but this is a pretty cut and dried issue.

[Fluffy]

Fluffy....

What is there to debate? I'd be happy to, but to everything you say, my response will be "you didn't pay for it, you don't own it, so it's stealing to just take it."

I'm willing but this is a pretty cut and dried issue.

Heya Melody,

Thats cool. The easiest way to debate something when it is cut and dried, from your point of view, is to look at each individual point made by the opposing party and attempt to counter it. If your view is correct you should be able to do these things. This voids such a response as "you didn't pay for it, you don't own it, so it's stealing to just take it." since my arguments counter it so you will not need to resort to it.

[Saw11_2000]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

The verb to steal, means the following: To take (the property of another) without right or permission. (from www.dictionary.com).

Firstly such a definition says nothing about duplicating material. It talks of taking without permission. The difference between the 2 is that if took a cd off the shelf of a shop without returning it then I would clearly be stealing. If I borrowed that cd from a library, copied it to my computer, and then returned it, it would not be stealing.

Furthermore, if we ignore this definition of stealing and decide that, as you say, the defining feature of theft is the "duplication of material (assumedly without permission)" then why did you then decide that there is a difference between lending a CD to one person and lending it to 30 people? Surely if it is wrong to do it 30 times, it is wrong to do it once?

Lastly, such a definition of stealing would include things such as photocopying of books, recording your favourite television programme or recording your favourite radio music.

If you record it for your own use it's fine.

[Mister Emu]

If I borrowed that cd from a library, copied it to my computer, and then returned it, it would not be stealing.

Words, music, and video are property as well, it is called intellectual property. To take someone's intellectual property is no different from taking th cd itself.

[Melody]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

The verb to steal, means the following: To take (the property of another) without right or permission. (from www.dictionary.com).

Firstly such a definition says nothing about duplicating material. It talks of taking without permission.

You're splitting hairs. If you duplicate something, you're taking something without permission or compensation.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

The difference between the 2 is that if took a cd off the shelf of a shop without returning it then I would clearly be stealing. If I borrowed that cd from a library, copied it to my computer, and then returned it, it would not be stealing.

Wrong...you're still taking something you didn't pay for. No, you didn't take the library's copy, but you did take it from the person who owns the copyright without recompense.

Originally Posted by fluffy

Furthermore, if we ignore this definition of stealing and decide that, as you say, the defining feature of theft is the "duplication of material (assumedly without permission)" then why did you then decide that there is a difference between lending a CD to one person and lending it to 30 people? Surely if it is wrong to do it 30 times, it is wrong to do it once?

The key word is "lending". At any given time, only one person has that CD. Now, if you duplicate a copy for your use and give the original, figuring you have a right to duplicate because you bought it...again, you're splitting hairs.

Originally Posted by fluffy

Lastly, such a definition of stealing would include things such as photocopying of books, recording your favourite television programme or recording your favourite radio music.

Actually, while there is a legal basis for copying of books in a limited way for educational/teaching purposes, it is illegal to photocopy a book. It also has a copyright.

I don't know what the rules are on radio music, but I do know that many tv shows have a little disclaimer at the front (?) that says it is illegal to record the program. I've never been able to read the whole thing because it scrolls so fast so there may be limited legal use (i.e. for your own enjoyment).

[Fluffy]

If you record it for your own use it's fine.

Cool. So if I download it off the internet radio or file sharing program or record it off the radio or music channel (only one of which is considered illegal), you think it should be considered fine as long as I only use it for personal use?

Does that mean you feel that letting a friend borrow your CD should be illegal since this is now not using the material for personal use? How about lending a book?

Words, music, and video are property as well, it is called intellectual property. To take someone's intellectual property is no different from taking th cd itself.

Now this is a vastly superior argument and frubals for you for bringing it up. I had thought it would have been the first used against me. It also had me for awhile when I first started considering this problem. However, for me to accept such an argument, I would also require justification of why recording a programme off the television, photocopying a book etc etc is not considered illegal whilst file sharing is.

There is an answer to this problem by the way, at least one that I have thought of, but it argues that all of these things should be made legal, not illegal, as long as a certain requirement is given. However, I don't want to put bias into your argument so I won't bring this up till later.

You're splitting hairs. If you duplicate something, you're taking something without permission or compensation.

You are making a leap of logic in your argument. You are saying, if A then B. I counter with B does not necessarily follow C, it only follows A and list the differences why A and C are different. You then try and equate A and C without countering these differences.

A (stealing), is taking, without permission, another person's property.
C (duplicating), is making an exact copy, without permission, without even ever having to have the original on your computer or anywhere near you, of another person's property.

The differences are as follows: A involves 1 item, C involves 2
A can only be used by one person at a time, C can be used by an infinite number of people
A requires denying the original owner of their property, C allows the original owner to keep their property

Compensation is irrelevant. Because of the above, I must say I disagree with your asessement that I am splitting hairs since I regard the differences as important at least in so far that they require a change to the definition of steal.

Wrong...you're still taking something you didn't pay for. No, you didn't take the library's copy, but you did take it from the person who owns the copyright without recompense.

Okay now I think you are indicating intellectual property. Please see my reply to Mr. Emu for a counter to this argument.

Actually, while there is a legal basis for copying of books in a limited way for educational/teaching purposes, it is illegal to photocopy a book. It also has a copyright.

Actually it is completely legal to photocopy a book for personal usage. You are also correct in saying that an educational authority is allowed to replicate copies of books to an identical amount to that of the original number of books in their posession (so if I had 5 books I could make 5 copies). However, a teacher who breaks this rule is penalised but is not charged with theft. I argue that if file sharing is theft, then this is theft as well. The law does not agree.

Originally Posted by Melody

I don't know what the rules are on radio music, but I do know that many tv shows have a little disclaimer at the front (?) that says it is illegal to record the program. I've never been able to read the whole thing because it scrolls so fast so there may be limited legal use (i.e. for your own enjoyment).

I have to admit I am totally unaware of the disclaimer to which you refer to. Such a thing does exist but only on purchased videos as far as I am aware and again it refers only to extra-personal usage.