Is file sharing stealing?

[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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Saw11_2000]

TV program is fine because the people have already made their money in ads. Music on the internet, number one the artist sees no money from it, and number two, the ads only support the provider, and the whole point is to usually let you sample the album (legally) so you can buy it later.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

...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...

Speaking on behalf of the recording industry, , I would say the reason is fidelity.

When you record off the TV or radio or stuff a book on a copier, you are making an inferior copy. When you download music and burn it to a CD, the 'product' you produce is potentially every bit as good as what is manufactured by the recording industry. Print out the CD jacket and the potential for someone to sell pirated music that send no royalties to the artist become much greater.

That's the recording industry's main argument in going after the file-sharing services, that their best chance to stop people from selling coutnerfeit CDs and DVDs is to stop the file sharing of copywrited material.

 

[Fluffy]

TV program is fine because the people have already made their money in ads. Music on the internet, number one the artist sees no money from it, and number two, the ads only support the provider, and the whole point is to usually let you sample the album (legally) so you can buy it later.

You need to do more research into how television companies make their money before making such blanket statements as that. For example, the BBC has no advertising and gets all of their money from TV liscences. Other channels rely heavily on sponsoring.

However, I must point out that you are not making an irrelevant argument. I am not trying to justify file sharing, nor am I trying to explain how it is morally right. I am merely attempting to show the, important differnces between file sharing and stealing whilst showing the similarities between file sharing and recording television etc.

You are arguing that stealing from the television is okay because you are not disadvantaging the television companies whilst stealing from artists is not because they cannot make money in the same way. This is a moral question and not a question of legality. For the record, I view free music downloads as wrong. I just do not think it should be illegal since I can see a more productive alternative and because I do not believe it is stealing.

When you record off the TV or radio or stuff a book on a copier, you are making an inferior copy. When you download music and burn it to a CD, the 'product' you produce is potentially every bit as good as what is manufactured by the recording industry. Print out the CD jacket and the potential for someone to sell pirated music that send no royalties to the artist become much greater.

Actually the default quality of music, when recording off of CDs, is 128kbps which is much below the standard CD quality. Infact if you use WMA then you are forced into a maximum of 192kbps. The quality of sound on most CDs is 940kbps. This means that all copies are inferior. Obviously there are ways around this but this is what most people use and the standard quality found on KaZaA (the highest quality I ever found was 312kbps which is still a 1/3 of CD quality).

This is actually substantially more of a loss in quality than that of say recording a television programme onto a DVD.

However, again, such an argument actually undermines the opposing position. It states that the only reason why file sharing is counted as stealing whilst other methods of sharing information aren't, is because big businesses stand to lose more from the former rather than the latter. So in other words, economic might is forcing such a definition. Take away such a pressure and it would not necessarily be so.

 

[Saw11_2000]

You need to do more research into how television companies make their money before making such blanket statements as that. For example, the BBC has no advertising and gets all of their money from TV liscences. Other channels rely heavily on sponsoring.

However, I must point out that you are not making an irrelevant argument. I am not trying to justify file sharing, nor am I trying to explain how it is morally right. I am merely attempting to show the, important differnces between file sharing and stealing whilst showing the similarities between file sharing and recording television etc.

You are arguing that stealing from the television is okay because you are not disadvantaging the television companies whilst stealing from artists is not because they cannot make money in the same way. This is a moral question and not a question of legality. For the record, I view free music downloads as wrong. I just do not think it should be illegal since I can see a more productive alternative and because I do not believe it is stealing.

Ever watch ABC...CBS...NBC...FOX...UPN...The WB...?all of them make their money through advertising. And plus, I thought BBC was funded by the British government.

 

[Fluffy]

Ever watch ABC...CBS...NBC...FOX...UPN...The WB...?all of them make their money through advertising. And plus, I thought BBC was funded by the British government.

I have not heard of most of those channels but FOX, for example, gets most of their money through sponsers NOT advertising although they do get a significant portion of their profits from advertisments. The BBC is not funded by the British government as far as I am aware.

This still does not show why file sharing is stealing.

 

[Halcyon]

I have not heard of most of those channels but FOX, for example, gets most of their money through sponsers NOT advertising although they do get a significant portion of their profits from advertisments. The BBC is not funded by the British government as far as I am aware.

This still does not show why file sharing is stealing.

The BBC is funded by the license fee.

I look at the whole file sharing topic like this.

If you go into a shop and buy a cd, then you have bought that music and with it the right to copy it for your own personal use i.e. to an MP3 player etc. If you lend the cd to a friend then its still your property, your friend will give it back to you.

But if you copy a cd, then you will physically have something that you haven't paid for, but is the same as from a shop.

Would you walk into a shop, buy a cd, take it home and copy it, then take the original back to the shop and get your money back? No, because you probably recognise that as stealing. The same therefore must be true for copies of friends cds and file sharing. Its taking something you haven't paid for, without the permission of the publishers.

 

[Ryan2065]

The way I view file sharing, it only helps the artist. If I hear a good song on the radio, I find out what artist sings the song, and then go download some of his or her songs. If I like the songs, I go and buy the album, if I don't like the other songs, I look for it on napster (which is now legal and costs 99 cents a song). I also feel that file sharing hurts the big artists more than it hurts the up and coming artists. With the up and coming artists, they have a medium where they can distribute their music to anyone who wants to listen for free. This could boost attendance at concerts and also help boost cd sales. It's just too bad I am in the minority when it comes to music file sharing. I think the best way you can tell if you are actually stealing or not is by asking yourself one simple question. "Would I buy this artist's cd if I wasn't able to download it?" If the answer is yes, then I feel you are stealing.

 

[michel]

From the Magazine | Notebook
Mortal Enemies No More

By DAVID E. THIGPEN

SUBSCRIBE TO TIME
Posted Sunday, Jul. 03, 2005
After the Supreme Court ruled in MGM v. Grokster that file-sharing services can be sued for promoting illegal downloads, Mashboxx, a start-up run by Grokster's ex-president, partnered with Sony BMG Music Entertainment, whose CEO Andrew Lack, below, spoke with TIME.

Is the Grokster ruling a cause for celebration?

This is very good news. The court found that balance we were looking for with respect to tech vs. content. And it upheld a very simple thought: Thou shalt not steal, even on the Internet.

Will this discourage innovation?

That's a sham, a fraud by radical techies who developed file sharing, so all it is is a front for stealing. At the end of the day, they built their house of cards on our back.

If file sharers are your mortal enemies, why is Mashboxx different?

They don't want to see our content stolen. For one thing, they are employing filtering technology [to prevent theft of songs].

So your former enemy is now your ally?

My guess is that the industry at large is headed in that direction. We've turned a page.

How big a boon is this ruling?

Now we can expend our energies on how to distribute music. Will we have to chase illegal file services in the Seychelles and God knows where else? Yes. But most people will move to a more normal pattern of buying music. It's a long war, and this was an important battle to win. --By David E. Thigpen

From the Jul. 11, 2005 issue of TIME magazine

 

[C&N]

Last time I checked, people sing because they love singing. An earlier time I checked, people played the guitar to have fun and because they love to play it. Although music is a profession, it is an expression (real music that is, not like the stuff we all accidentally see on TV), and getting people to listen, let alone be willing to pay for your expressions is a blessing all on its own. When was the last time somebody picked up a guitar and said "I want to play like the guy from blink 182 and make millions of dollars by only playing 7 different chords per album?" The answer is never. Music goes (or should go) much deeper than monetary value, and whoever is mad that somebody "stole" their music doesn't deserve a penny, because they are in the music business for all the wrong reasons. If people love your music, they will support you regardless. If you are blessed with doing what you love, and make a living out of it and being happy, then what right do you have to complain? The people who complain are the untalented ones who just love money, and I do not understand how they can live with themselves.

So to finish this post, the people who make music for the music do not care about making money, and the ones that do care about the money, care about sharing. So I guess file sharing is technically stealing, but for all those mainstream artists, why should you get mad if somebody steals 2 grains of sand from your beach, while others (like Dream Theater for example, who are possibly the most talented band ever) do not care if someone steals a plank of wood from their shack? The answer is simple. It depends on how much you love money. Besides, around 98% (i am ball parking this statistic) of North Americans do not own a ferarri or things along those lines and get by fine, yet that 2% complain.

 

[KirbyFan101]

I am a seeder King Pin for torrents. Hundreds of Gigabytes of music, movies, games, and other... stuff

I think "stealing" is the wrong term, but it is definately immoral. You are freely distributing intellectual property/data that would otherwise cost money. Therefore, cutting these organisations profits.

On the other hand, I do it anyway. What more can I say. I'm not afraid to admit I break the rules, no justification required.

 

[Riven]

Is file sharing copyright infringement? Of course.

Is file sharing stealing? Not by a long shot.

The recording industry needs to adapt. The cheapest I've been able to find music downloads is 99 cents per song. To download a full CD - an average of 13 songs - would cost $12.87. So, for $12.87, I provide the disc, the case, the equipment with which to record the CD, and receive no sleeve, lyrics, album art, or any of the bonuses commonly found on today's CD's (such as DVD extras or special internet content). By comparison, going to the store and buying a CD with the case, sleeve, lyrics, album art, and bonuses would only (usually) cost about $10. By legally downloading and recording your own CDs, you are saving the recording industry a whole bunch of money. However, they charge you more to do so. So, at this point, legal music downloads are complete rip-offs. When the industry wises up and offers full, legally-downloadable albums for 5 or 6 bucks, I will be more than happy to pay for them. Until then, I will continue downloading music illegally without feeling the least bit of guilt.