The Philosophies and Arguments on File Sharing of Copyrighted Material

[JohnGaltsAxiom]

Did you understand my post? Cause I'm thinkin' you didn't; Also, 50 cent album? I was talking software.

Ok, uhhhh the newer edition of Adobe Photoshop. Or the newest DVD playback software. Blah blah blah. 50 cent wasn't my point.

[Hairbautt]

Did you understand my post? Cause I'm thinkin' you didn't; Also, 50 cent album? I was talking software.

Ok, uhhhh the newer edition of Adobe Photoshop. Or the newest DVD playback software. Blah blah blah. 50 cent wasn't my point.

That's more like. Don't forget Office software tho', its literally required when in College. And nothing beats M$ office...

Ok, so 1.) Freedom of Information 2.) Robin Hood factor

3.) Trial factor? - I've heard some people get full version software just to try it out for a while (an extended LONG while). Such as AV or firewall software, to see which is right for them. 30 day trials (if any) with limited functionality just don't do it for some.

So, try it the p2p way, then some pay credit when it's due.

Example: Outpost Firewall - tried it for 3-4 months, loved it. I bought it. Cause we all know some of these progs can be tricky...

That's all I got.

[JohnGaltsAxiom]

Ok, uhhhh the newer edition of Adobe Photoshop. Or the newest DVD playback software. Blah blah blah. 50 cent wasn't my point.

That's more like. Don't forget Office software tho', its literally required when in College. And nothing beats M$ office...

Ok, so 1.) Freedom of Information 2.) Robin Hood factor

3.) Trial factor? - I've heard some people get full version software just to try it out for a while (an extended LONG while). Such as AV or firewall software, to see which is right for them. 30 day trials (if any) with limited functionality just don't do it for some.

So, try it the p2p way, then some pay credit when it's due.

Example: Outpost Firewall - tried it for 3-4 months, loved it. I bought it. Cause we all know some of these progs can be tricky...

That's all I got.

That might be the answer. But that's the same thing as trialware--or w/e it's called. Just the time period to have that software, or whatever, is longer and under a different distribution method--bittorrent. If that's what you were suggesting as a legitimate use for file sharing of copyrighted material.

[Asuran]

I like to share my Information,as humans we are to share are we not.

Do we as humans share tangible information for enjoyment, or do we exchange it for compensation?

Well, both obviously. People borrow information on tangible media from friends and libraries for example.

Since Slyck removed this thread I'll add our discussion so far here, if you or someone else wants to comment on those points.

I need conceptual help on the philosophy of “file sharing of copyrighted materials”.

Look, you know and I know that “file sharing” over the Internet is conducted by millions of people everyday. And it’s pretty simple to know as to what this “file sharing” is:

“File sharing is the practice of making files available for other users to download over the Internet and smaller networks. Usually file sharing follows the peer-to-peer (P2P) model, where the files are stored on and served by personal computers of the users. Most people who engage in file sharing are also downloading files that other users share. Sometimes these two activities are linked together. P2P file sharing is distinct from file trading in that downloading files from a P2P network does not require uploading, although some networks either provide incentives for uploading such as credits or force the sharing of files being currently downloaded.” -blah blah blah, Wikipedia

That’s the general idea of it all.

The question is why do some of the people that “share” files justify their actions for, at least, downloading files that are copyrighted?

Everyone knows what copyrighted files are. You know, you aren’t supposed to download any copyrighted file for free because it’s restrained for regulated “use of a particular expression of an idea or information” based on the sole provider’s rights. Alright.

I’m not from any government agency. I’m just a guy trying to figure out the just morality and ethicality of this whole debate from different perspectives. At first I thought it was blasphemy to go to thepiratebay.org and download a movie still playing in the theater. I’m still pretty stuck on that notion. I’m very curious, so what I’m trying to do is open a discussion that will bring all sorts of arguments collectively to this relative location.

Maybe you don't agree with downloading copyrighted files. Perhaps you download copyrighted material like a fiend still to this day, long after the Napster dilemma. Hey, if you think it should be a legal practice, but don’t do any downloading of the kind, then you can prose your argument too. I want to know why you do or do not. As far as the forum rule of law and I are concerned, all philosophies on this matter are able for intervention.

Now, argue and philosophize! (sophisticatedly) Idea

In my opinion you have the whole issue backwards. What you should be asking is what right anyone has to deny me from making a new copy of something with my own time and resources? Just because someone bought the lawmakers somewhere along the line doesn't make it right. I believe that in a free society things must be allowed by default and prohibitions is what needs to be soundly justified. This particular one isn't, at all.

I don't know if I have a right not to be denied "from making a new copy of something with my own time and resources". Could you elaborate?

Again, your wording is strange. "A right not to be denied"? Like I said, in my opinion "a right not to be denied" is a fundamental part of any society that wants to call itself free. A right to do something does not need to be further justified. A prohibition does.

I think I should be allowed to copy the material in any way I want for my personal use. Maybe it shouldn't be copied for the internet where an infinite number of people may sustain the copy for "free" without compliance from the originating owner. Do you think that should be allowed? If so, why, Asuran.

Yes, because there is no proper justification to deny it.

[Tusker]

Just jumping in here...the copyright laws of today are far different from the original intent. The original intent was to foster a balance between the needs/rights of the authors and the needs/rights of the public. Copyright allowed the author certain financial incentives for creating whatever it is/was...book, song etc. but that was to be tempered by the cost being low enough to allow for public access to it. The point being just enough of a finacial incentive to entice new creators to produce but low enugh that the the majority of the public would have easy access. The laws have changed to conform to greed and has veered completely into a profit protection law. A $500 piece of software that, while not a necessity, is still too expensive for the majority to have reasonable access. Copyright was never intended to ensure profit, only to ensure and protect fairness to both author and consumer. I'l never see the point in an argument that equates legal with right and illegal with wrong. They are completely different. Is is it wrong to share copyrighted files? No. In my opinion it isn't. Not in the present climate of profit over access. Bring the law back to the original intent and I'll rethink my position.
Just my 2 cents on the subject...feel free to /ignore

edited to add an answer to the threadsarter's question, "The question is why do some of the people that “share” files justify their actions for, at least, downloading files that are copyrighted? ".
No need to justify it, it isn't wrong. My choice to wear a helmet when out on my motorcycle. It's only "wrong" to the screeching lobbyists that press for laws to benefit the insurance companies who in turn promise the politicians some plums if the lawmaking goes their way. It's impossible to make a case that tries equate "right/wrong" with "legal/illegal".

[thewizeard]

You can also look at it like this...

..A friend of mine is what they call in Holland a "stratenmaker"; he builds streets..

In Holland many streets in the urban areas are built using a sort of brick that's about the same size as your regular LBC brick. He is a kind person, and as you can imagine on his knees laying these bricks daily. You would be surprised at the artistic forms he can lay..

http://images.google.nl/images?hl=nl...n+zoeken&gbv=2



Well when he has finished..he doesn't ask or receive royalties from every pendant using /walking over his street. He creates them for the general public; an advanced art form...you are free to use his street, day or night!

**so JohnGaltsAxiom I wonder what your motivation is and where you are coming from; joining a file-sharing site and one of you first posts, seems to be similar if not the same as the Official RIAA standpoint....perhaps you can explain your motivation..or are you feeling a little guilty about using Kazaa?...

[Zafsk]

Well, I look at it this way. You can not really expect me to go into a store and buy music, software, games, or movies with out knowing if I like them or not. Believe me, I will go and buy a CD if I like it. You may ask how do you know If you like it, the answer is simple, I listen to it. The same for games, if its a timeless game I shall go buy it but if I beat it in less then a couple of hours whats the point.

I'm sick of the government trying to bully you into buying things you might not want because you have not made your decision on what you think of it. I believe that many more people would buy more movies if they had a chance to check them out first, same goes for games and music.

As for the robin hood philosophy I am not really sure i'm doing this for anyone else besides myself, selfish? maybe. However I do believe in the ideal that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

The internet is out there, why not use it to its fullest extent, I am not hurting anyone nor causing anyone trauma. Even Canada said that when they lighted up on piracy the margin of sales increased by 20%, thats not coincidence.

[Chewie]

I'd like to make a point regarding software that has gotten my goat for about ten years now... since moving to PCs, basically.

I've always wanted to give my kids the best help I can. Installing a warez copy of Office to give them an seamless transition between junior school (not Uni, you understand, I'm talking 5th/6th graders) and home when I myself am quite happy with a magazine freebie of the superior Smartsuite is giving them what they need.
The fact that at the time I couldn't scrape together even a quarter of the cost of Office would not sway MS, their lawyers or the Copyright Cops.
Now, many years later, I have a better job in an office with a company that uses the Office suite extensively. In orrder to make the best use of the suite I have to flounder around at work, I need it installed at home as well. I still can't afford it - mainly because even though my salary has increased, Office seems to be even further out of reach.
Even though I have a perfectly good and legitimate copy of Smartsuite here, it's not installed. Why install it when I've got to learn to live with Office? MS have finally got me.

OK, lets have a look at why Office is so bloody popular with businesses...
It's almost universal, isn't it? All the schools teach IT with it. I'm willing to bet that all colleges and universities go with the flow as well; I mean, it's cheaper to install Office than to re-train teachers/professors and every new kid how to use something else.
I'm not talking about computer savvy IT staff, I'm talking about a much larger part of any company's payroll: secretaries, managers, general staff etc.
Most companies install Office because their employees have all used it before.

If the main reason businesses install and use Office is its familiarity for the desktop workforce then we must question why educational institutions teach with it.
Probably because so many businesses use it. Is it that simple? I think so.
There is, though, the insiduous possibility that it came installed on the systems they bought, much like Windows did.
Now I think I'm there.
Home users will upgrade the giveaway software they have used since they got their PC rather than purchase a completely different (and in all probability, more appropriate/functional/powerful) application. MS has known this for many years and its distribution of OEM versions of Works, Office and Windows has payed dividends in the bulk purchasing PC market as well as the home.

So what's my point?
My point is that I am forced to use inferior software in order to become proficient enough with it to be productive at work. What's worse is that I can't afford to purchase this thing that I hate and would rather not have.

Just as a side note, I am quite seriously more computer savvy than everyone else in my department but they think I'm mad when I get frustrated and as Word, "WTF did you do that for?"
After 4 years I still don't know what's going to happen when I Ctrl-V some cells into an existing table... will it throw them all in a cell nested, insert them and bump the existing ones over or do it properly and paste over? Even changing a table's column widths is a ten minute trial and error process.
Similarly, Outlook 2003 introduced the All New Completely Fucked Up MS Options Dialog that makes you dive in and out of various Advanced popups looking for the simplest of options.
I am still the first person anyone comes to when they need to find out how to do something.


For all these reasons I use Warez Office. I couldn't give a shit whether it's right or wrong.

[dodgy368]

I download from p2p cos it's free, couldn't give a bollox about the moral crap you're asking for.