Is Filesharing Ethical?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Yeah I'm supposed to live on £50 a week but poor old Sony and Metallica REALLY need my money ?

This serves as a good jumping off point.

I pondered this issue for some time, and have decided that file sharing is pretty textbook theft. In fact, I don't quite understand how anyone can rationalize ethical file sharing. Saying that any company is 'evil' and takes advantage of the consumer is a simple Ad hominem, which has nothing to do with the act itself. I'm sorry, but owning music or Windows version is not a right. Also, because of this logic, every person who writes an Ebook or releases their own album is just as liable to lose all that effort from file sharing. If someone can logically rationalize selective file sharing, only considering rich/bad people, then by all means. It's not quite Robin Hood...stealing from the rich to give to one's self, and the now and again random person who released a quality song/app on his own. Justifying stealing simply because they are rich or bad isn't good enough. No one is forced to buy their products.

I file share because I don't really care. I however, know and admit its pure theft of someone else's stuff.

Did you feel the same about making cassette copies of albums back in the day? Or are you too young to remember those days?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

On a similar note, RP, would you think it theft to use a US proxy server to sign into iTunes in the US and download music at a far cheaper price than it is available in the UK? Or to view Youtube vids that are 'not available in your country' due to outmoded, non-global copyright laws?

Just asking.

[Feck]

Yeah I'm supposed to live on £50 a week but poor old Sony and Metallica REALLY need my money ?

This serves as a good jumping off point.

I pondered this issue for some time, and have decided that file sharing is pretty textbook theft. In fact, I don't quite understand how anyone can rationalize ethical file sharing. Saying that any company is 'evil' and takes advantage of the consumer is a simple Ad hominem, which has nothing to do with the act itself. I'm sorry, but owning music or Windows version is not a right. Also, because of this logic, every person who writes an Ebook or releases their own album is just as liable to lose all that effort from file sharing. If someone can logically rationalize selective file sharing, only considering rich/bad people, then by all means. It's not quite Robin Hood...stealing from the rich to give to one's self, and the now and again random person who released a quality song/app on his own. Justifying stealing simply because they are rich or bad isn't good enough. No one is forced to buy their products.

I file share because I don't really care. I however, know and admit its pure theft of someone else's stuff.

Did you feel the same about making cassette copies of albums back in the day? Or are you too young to remember those days?

Did you read my post in this thread way back at the start ? Theft is theft ,But you wouldn't expect to end up in prison if you try a grape or a pick and mix before you buy from a shop would you ?
In my case Yes I do have a product that I have not payed for, but To say that someone is worse of because I have that product is not true,
If you go want to go ...Back in the day then taping the friday rock show was also illegal but without that I wouldn't have spent the thousands of pounds I have on rock music .When the record or film companies count up illegal copies and then say that is how much money they have lost ,it gets on my tits. They make the assumption that IF there no way to copy stuff then we would all buy all the stuff we have a pirate of ,this is not true.

[RPizzle]

Yeah I'm supposed to live on £50 a week but poor old Sony and Metallica REALLY need my money ?

This serves as a good jumping off point.

I pondered this issue for some time, and have decided that file sharing is pretty textbook theft. In fact, I don't quite understand how anyone can rationalize ethical file sharing. Saying that any company is 'evil' and takes advantage of the consumer is a simple Ad hominem, which has nothing to do with the act itself. I'm sorry, but owning music or Windows version is not a right. Also, because of this logic, every person who writes an Ebook or releases their own album is just as liable to lose all that effort from file sharing. If someone can logically rationalize selective file sharing, only considering rich/bad people, then by all means. It's not quite Robin Hood...stealing from the rich to give to one's self, and the now and again random person who released a quality song/app on his own. Justifying stealing simply because they are rich or bad isn't good enough. No one is forced to buy their products.

I file share because I don't really care. I however, know and admit its pure theft of someone else's stuff.

Did you feel the same about making cassette copies of albums back in the day? Or are you too young to remember those days?

Did I feel it was theft when I copied copied cassettes or taped TV shows on the VHS? No. But I was like 6. I guess being considered a Generation X/Y cusper gives me a nice view with memories of the Analog age.

Now that I'm at an age to reflect: Is copying a tape unethical? If one owns or has title to the source material, then no. If one doesn't, then you are pretty much getting someone for nothing. I do consider purchasing a product such as music to be tantamount to owning the use of the music regardless of media (CD, DVD, .mp3). Also, I am totally against the DRM because it robs the end user of their own property that they have purchased.

[klr]

... If one owns or has title to the source material, then no. If one doesn't, then you are pretty much getting someone for nothing. I consider purchasing a product such as music to be tantamount to owning the use of the music regardless of media (CD, DVD, .mp3). Also, I am totally against the DRM because it robs the end user of their own property that they have purchased.

The music industry would doubtless claim that this is not for you to decide - that it is they who set the limits of what it is you can do with the product that is being sold, not you, and that in buying something, you are agreeing to abide by those restrictions.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Yeah I'm supposed to live on £50 a week but poor old Sony and Metallica REALLY need my money ?

This serves as a good jumping off point.

I pondered this issue for some time, and have decided that file sharing is pretty textbook theft. In fact, I don't quite understand how anyone can rationalize ethical file sharing. Saying that any company is 'evil' and takes advantage of the consumer is a simple Ad hominem, which has nothing to do with the act itself. I'm sorry, but owning music or Windows version is not a right. Also, because of this logic, every person who writes an Ebook or releases their own album is just as liable to lose all that effort from file sharing. If someone can logically rationalize selective file sharing, only considering rich/bad people, then by all means. It's not quite Robin Hood...stealing from the rich to give to one's self, and the now and again random person who released a quality song/app on his own. Justifying stealing simply because they are rich or bad isn't good enough. No one is forced to buy their products.

I file share because I don't really care. I however, know and admit its pure theft of someone else's stuff.

Did you feel the same about making cassette copies of albums back in the day? Or are you too young to remember those days?

Did I feel it was theft when I copied copied cassettes or taped TV shows on the VHS? No. But I was like 6. I guess being considered a Generation X/Y cusper gives me a nice view with memories of the Analog age.

Now that I'm at an age to reflect: Is copying a tape unethical? If one owns or has title to the source material, then no. If one doesn't, then you are pretty much getting someone for nothing. I consider purchasing a product such as music to be tantamount to owning the use of the music regardless of media (CD, DVD, .mp3). Also, I am totally against the DRM because it robs the end user of their own property that they have purchased.

So is it unethical to listen to music on the radio, or Youtube which you do not own?

Personally, I think the bigger thieves are the record companies that charge every music instrument shop in the world a fee just in case someone plays Stairway to Heaven in the shop! Just because there is a law that says that one way of getting something for nothing is right and another is wrong does not make it ethical - merely legal.

[RPizzle]

On a similar note, RP, would you think it theft to use a US proxy server to sign into iTunes in the US and download music at a far cheaper price than it is available in the UK? Or to view Youtube vids that are 'not available in your country' due to outmoded, non-global copyright laws?

Just asking.

I would say that it would be unethical. One has a right to sell their products however they deem fit. While fairness is an ideal, it is by no means a necessity of selling a product.

On point 2, I don't know, I lack any sort of knowledge in international copyright.

[klr]

... If one owns or has title to the source material, then no. If one doesn't, then you are pretty much getting someone for nothing. I consider purchasing a product such as music to be tantamount to owning the use of the music regardless of media (CD, DVD, .mp3). Also, I am totally against the DRM because it robs the end user of their own property that they have purchased.

Again, that is not the way the industry actually works. It is extortionate and by most standards quite immoral, but it's the law.

[Feck]

It might serve the debate to add that Happy Birthday is copyright or that One verse of the twelve days of christmass is ?
Happy birthday to you happy birthday to you .............oh sorry I'm a thief

[klr]

One other point: In some countries - including the UK, and I suspect Ireland - it is still illegal to make a copy of copyrighted material for your own use. Even ripping from a CD that you own is verboten.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripping#Legality

In countries such as Spain, anyone is allowed to make a private copy of a copyrighted material for oneself and the source copy does not even have to be legal. Making copies for other people, however, is forbidden if done for profit.

In the United Kingdom, making a private copy of copyrighted media without the copyright owner's consent is illegal as of April 2009: this includes ripping music from a CD to a computer or digital music player.[5][6] The UK government has made proposals to allow people to make copies of music for personal use.[7]. According to one survey, 55% of British consumers believed ripping a CD to be legal, and 59% admitted to doing it.

From a legal standpoint, there is nothing new here: Whether it be audio cassette, VHS Tape, CD, DVD, Blu-Ray or legally downloaded MP3: You do not have a right to copy it, or extract from it. Legally. But ethically - which was the question framed by the OP - that's a different matter.

[RPizzle]

Yeah I'm supposed to live on £50 a week but poor old Sony and Metallica REALLY need my money ?

This serves as a good jumping off point.

I pondered this issue for some time, and have decided that file sharing is pretty textbook theft. In fact, I don't quite understand how anyone can rationalize ethical file sharing. Saying that any company is 'evil' and takes advantage of the consumer is a simple Ad hominem, which has nothing to do with the act itself. I'm sorry, but owning music or Windows version is not a right. Also, because of this logic, every person who writes an Ebook or releases their own album is just as liable to lose all that effort from file sharing. If someone can logically rationalize selective file sharing, only considering rich/bad people, then by all means. It's not quite Robin Hood...stealing from the rich to give to one's self, and the now and again random person who released a quality song/app on his own. Justifying stealing simply because they are rich or bad isn't good enough. No one is forced to buy their products.

I file share because I don't really care. I however, know and admit its pure theft of someone else's stuff.

Did you feel the same about making cassette copies of albums back in the day? Or are you too young to remember those days?

Did you read my post in this thread way back at the start ? Theft is theft ,But you wouldn't expect to end up in prison if you try a grape or a pick and mix before you buy from a shop would you ?
In my case Yes I do have a product that I have not payed for, but To say that someone is worse of because I have that product is not true,
If you go want to go ...Back in the day then taping the friday rock show was also illegal but without that I wouldn't have spent the thousands of pounds I have on rock music .When the record or film companies count up illegal copies and then say that is how much money they have lost ,it gets on my tits. They make the assumption that IF there no way to copy stuff then we would all buy all the stuff we have a pirate of ,this is not true.

If you are saying theft is theft, then I assume we agree on that tenant. That was really my only point. While I agree that not everyone who downloads a song would purchase the song, it does create a large disparity between those who purchase the song and listen to it, and those who don't purchase the song and listen to it.

[RPizzle]

... If one owns or has title to the source material, then no. If one doesn't, then you are pretty much getting someone for nothing. I consider purchasing a product such as music to be tantamount to owning the use of the music regardless of media (CD, DVD, .mp3). Also, I am totally against the DRM because it robs the end user of their own property that they have purchased.

The music industry would doubtless claim that this is not for you to decide - that it is they who set the limits of what it is you can do with the product that is being sold, not you, and that in buying something, you are agreeing to abide by those restrictions.

This is a valid argument.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

... If one owns or has title to the source material, then no. If one doesn't, then you are pretty much getting someone for nothing. I consider purchasing a product such as music to be tantamount to owning the use of the music regardless of media (CD, DVD, .mp3). Also, I am totally against the DRM because it robs the end user of their own property that they have purchased.

The music industry would doubtless claim that this is not for you to decide - that it is they who set the limits of what it is you can do with the product that is being sold, not you, and that in buying something, you are agreeing to abide by those restrictions.

This is a valid argument.

Are you advocating that obeying all laws without question, or occasional breakage, is the only ethical stance?

How about blasphemy laws? If it was once again illegal to be an atheist, or to profess atheism, would you consider that ethical? Would you consider it ethical to betray a member of your own family to the secret police, as was once the law in Stalin's Russia? (Notice how I cleverly avoided the 'H' word there - thus dooming the thread!)

The question was not one of legality - but of ethics.

[RPizzle]

... If one owns or has title to the source material, then no. If one doesn't, then you are pretty much getting someone for nothing. I consider purchasing a product such as music to be tantamount to owning the use of the music regardless of media (CD, DVD, .mp3). Also, I am totally against the DRM because it robs the end user of their own property that they have purchased.

The music industry would doubtless claim that this is not for you to decide - that it is they who set the limits of what it is you can do with the product that is being sold, not you, and that in buying something, you are agreeing to abide by those restrictions.

This is a valid argument.

Are you advocating that obeying all laws without question, or occasional breakage, is the only ethical stance?

How about blasphemy laws? If it was once again illegal to be an atheist, or to profess atheism, would you consider that ethical? Would you consider it ethical to betray a member of your own family to the secret police, as was once the law in Stalin's Russia? (Notice how I cleverly avoided the 'H' word there - thus dooming the thread!)

The question was not one of legality - but of ethics.

As an ethical decision, one should know that hasty generalizations don't really help your case at all. In fact, this entire post is moot because you haven't even mentioned the issue being discussed. Not only that, but you are using an appeal to emotion with the pathos arguments. I will grant you that I lol'd a bit.

[Pappa]

... If one owns or has title to the source material, then no. If one doesn't, then you are pretty much getting someone for nothing. I consider purchasing a product such as music to be tantamount to owning the use of the music regardless of media (CD, DVD, .mp3). Also, I am totally against the DRM because it robs the end user of their own property that they have purchased.

The music industry would doubtless claim that this is not for you to decide - that it is they who set the limits of what it is you can do with the product that is being sold, not you, and that in buying something, you are agreeing to abide by those restrictions.

This is a valid argument.

Are you advocating that obeying all laws without question, or occasional breakage, is the only ethical stance?

How about blasphemy laws? If it was once again illegal to be an atheist, or to profess atheism, would you consider that ethical? Would you consider it ethical to betray a member of your own family to the secret police, as was once the law in Stalin's Russia? (Notice how I cleverly avoided the 'H' word there - thus dooming the thread!)

The question was not one of legality - but of ethics.

I've always been a firm believer in what Henry David Thoreau wrote in Civil Disobedience. I can't find the quote right now, but it goes something like:

"It is our duty to break laws we find repugnant."

Alas, the same logic also justifies the actions of suicide bombers, but hey, no quote's perfect, right?