What Would You Do If Filesharing Became Illegal

[mithrandir2001]

<< When you steal from a store, there is a loss of money that can't be regained, and their inventory goes down. If you download an mp3, there is no actualy loss of money. All these indirect profit loss theories are bull. >>


These same shaky arguments get repeated over and over again.


<< Second of all, let me tell you that is these weren't free, I'd never buy them in the first place. >>


You DO place some value on them, however, since you have taken the time to acquire them.

 

[silveronsilver]

<< The Bible also says to obey the laws of the land (unless the conflict with God's). >>



According to this logic, you should have kept slaves because the Bible does not tell you not to keep slaves, and slavery was legal at one point.

[Q}OH, and care to explain hoe c.i. is anything less than stealing?[/i] >>



When you steal something, the owner no longer has it. When you copy something, the original owner has his copy, and you have your copy, too. Information does not have the problem of scarcity that matter does. Information can be replicated arbitrarily at asymptotically zero cost.

That is why copyright infringement is not stealing.

Or you can just review US Law, which clearly states that copyright infingement and stealing are completely different kinds of infractions that violate completely different laws and have completely different remedies.

So morally and legally, copyright infringement is NOTHING LIKE STEALING.

 

[Hammer]

That's why we have the 2nd Amendment




<< & RIAA & MPAA Managed to Get a Law Passed That Made It Punishable by Death

Would You Still Share

Discuss >>

 

[NeoMadHatter]

i'd still do it. turn around and say, "what'd i do?"

 

[Keego]

I'd get on a canadian IRC network

 

[MajesticMoose]

correct me if i'm wrong, but I was under the impression that it was illegal. That hasn't stop people, including myself.

m00se

 

[RedFox1]

Warez and illegally distributed MP3s hurt businesses. Distributing them violates the terms of use that accompany them. And distributing these things is already illegal.

People who do distribute them are criminals, and I think that they should be punished. Unfortunately, it's difficult and expensive to do so. It would be much easier and much less expensive if everyone would take responsibility for their actions -- there's no excuse for "casual" piracy.

Should filesharing be illegal? No, because filesharing could have plenty of legitimate purposes -- if everyone was responsible about preserving the rights of the software and music industries. When I origionally tried to download the Return to Wolfenstein demo, it was difficult to find a fast, available server. Filesharing communities could make situations like this much easier.

It makes me angry that it will be more difficult for me to maintain my LEGAL mp3 collection in the future, because the music industry feels they need to take steps to protect their music from the swarms of music pirates downloading their products for free. When people talk to me about their "mp3 collection", I let them know what I think about it, friends and enemies alike.

-Russ

 

[DougyDanger]

According to this logic, you should have kept slaves because the Bible does not tell you not to keep slaves, and slavery was legal at one point.

Just because we are not told NOT to have slaves does not mean you SHOULD have slaves if the law provides it. That statement is highly illogical. I said we are to OBEY the laws of the land. Not do everything they permit. Big difference.

[Q}OH, and care to explain hoe c.i. is anything less than stealing?[/i] >>



I'll concede that under the legal definition file sharing is not stealing. When I speak of right and wrong its usually in a moral sense, and that generally parallels the laws. I'll leave the legal side of it to others. (Though it is still illegal - copyrighted material of course - and the lack of regard people have about that concerns me.)

Morally speaking the two are not much different and semantics aside it is stealing. You acquire something without paying for it as you would have to. The Bible is very clear about getting things without working for them or earning them. If copying CD, programs or movies does not bother you ethically then nothing I say here will likely change your mind. However I can assure you that the Bible has a few things to say about the matter. Would they be enough to change your mind? Who knows. But don't use the Bible to defend it morally.

As you can tell God is the foundation of my morals. So I naturally have a different view of things than most people. And I can assure you that in his eyes, (illegal) file sharing is a no-no.

I won't use up more space here to debate it (though others may be enjoying this). If you care to continue I suppose I'll have to learn how this PM thing works!

 

[silveronsilver]

<< Morally speaking the two are not much different and semantics aside it is stealing. >>



What the hell is semantics aside?

Semantics is the essence of debate!

If you want to put semantics aside, you would have to stop talking!

BWAHAHAHA

 

[silveronsilver]

Legally, copyright infringement is not stealing.

Semantically, copyright infringement is not stealing.

Logically, copyright infringement is not stealing.

So WHEN is copyright infringement stealing?

 

[Goldfish]

I'd just keep using the FTPs I always do.

 

[silveronsilver]

And here is something to ponder.

If God copyrighted the Bible, and forced people to pay Jesus $20 for every copy (though it cost him 5 cents to make) and if he sued the people who copied it without permission, and if he put copyprotection on the Bible,

THEN WE WOULD NOT HAVE THE BIBLE TODAY. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN LOST LONG AGO.

Would you have preferred that?

 

[Elledan]

Creating analogies between filesharing and the 'real' world isn't going to help much. Obviously both have very little in common.

It's why copyright laws are outdated: they only apply to the 'real' world, not the internet and related WAN's.

 

[DougyDanger]

>What the hell is semantics aside?
>Semantics is the essence of debate!
>If you want to put semantics aside, you would have to stop talking!

Semantics: Well, what do you mean by "IS oral sex, sex? That depends on your definitin of 'IS'."

Debate: Who is better, Larry Bird or Micheal Jordan. (and don't even say Jordan!)


If semantics is the essence of your debates you must never get anywhere.

Semantics is basically arguing over the definitions of words. Debate works best when people can agree on these definitions as soon as possible. Then rather than trying to define your terms you can get to the real matter of the issues at hand.

 

[silveronsilver]

<< Semantics is basically arguing over the definitions of words. Debate works best when people can agree on these definitions as soon as possible. Then rather than trying to define your terms you can get to the real matter of the issues at hand. >>



Our entire debate is over the definition of copyright infringement.

In other words, our debate is one of semantics.

Like I said, if you want to put semantics aside, you need to stop talking.

 

[jjones]

<< What Would You Do If Filesharing Became Illegal & RIAA & MPAA Managed to Get a Law Passed That Made It Punishable by Death

Would You Still Share >>


well, that will never happen so what's the point of discussion. besides, if it were to happen, then i would just get all the tree-hugging, free-all-the-criminals, anti-death penalty poeple on my side and i would get out of it and probably have free pizza and a death row gf for my troubles on top of that.

 

[DougyDanger]

<< And here is something to ponder.

If God copyrighted the Bible, and forced people to pay Jesus $20 for every copy (though it cost him 5 cents to make) and if he sued the people who copied it without permission, and if he put copyprotection on the Bible,

THEN WE WOULD NOT HAVE THE BIBLE TODAY. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN LOST LONG AGO.

Would you have preferred that? >>




Well thats a red herring if I ever saw one...or is a red herring...never mind.

I know I would have bought a copy. You assume it would have been lost. An assumption you can't make. Now I'll play along and go with your assumption that no one would have bought it (despite it being the #1 seller every year).

A) the Bible did not exist at the time of Jesus.
B) Even if every Bible were destroyed today, it could be re-assembled by using all the (legal) references out there from other sources.
C) No I would not prefer that. I'm certainly glad He made it so available.
D) What a silly hypothetical senario full of assupmtions. Not at all in keeping with God's character. Most certainly a "do you still beat your wife" question.


Did I just post another reply?! Bah!

 

[DougyDanger]

<< Our entire debate is over the definition of copyright infringement. >>



It is? Gee, and I thought I was debating the ethics of file sharing!


Maybe thats we are going in cicles. You are debating the definition of c.i. and I'm debating its morality!


Anything more, PM me.

 

[silveronsilver]

<< No I would not prefer that. I'm certainly glad He made it so available >>



See? You too are pro-copyright-reform, you're just pretending otherwise!

Now answer this!

Let's say that God is overpricing the Bible so much that you cannot afford it, but you can get a copy from a filesharing network. Would you rather download a copy or would you rather remain Godless.

 

[killface]

Would sharing be illegal, or the downloading of shared files? If sharing was illegal, I wouldnt have a problem. I'd just leech my a$$ off.

 

[DougyDanger]

You're like an annoying gnat at the beach. And I'm too dumb to find a new spot to sit!




<< See? You too are pro-copyright-reform, you're just pretending otherwise! >>



No, I just said I prefer the way He did 'distribute' the Bible! In debate its never good to put words in the other persons mouth. Your question was asking if I would prefer an 'open version' of the Bible vs a copyrighted one. And last time I checked people are still allowed to do the same. You asked what I thought about it, not what I would do about it. While I would not have liked it, I would have paid up and bought mine.



<< Now answer this! >>



Let's say that God is overpricing the Bible so much that you cannot afford it, but you can get a copy from a filesharing network. Would you rather download a copy or would you rather remain Godless.[/i] >>



A)God tells us that we don't need the Bible to know him (have the reference somewhere...pm me if you really want it). So again, your assumptions are fales.
B)I'd find someone who has one and borrow theirs.
C)I'd pray that God would provide one. Just like thousands of people do today. Some countries do not allow the Bible and you'd be amazed at some of the stories of how they get them.

Basically, your scenario is so far removed from Gods nature, character, and the truth that its absurd. At this point you're really reaching and being silly.

Reminds me of a saying...Don't try and teach a pig to sing. You'll waste your time and annoy the pig.

 

[DougyDanger]

That reference....Romans 1:20

Thanks to my Bible reader on my Visor! Oh, and the FREEWARE version of the KJV I have.

 

[Elledan]

How come people are discussing religion in a thread on filesharing? Since when are these two things related?

 

[silveronsilver]

If the Bible were copyrighted and copyprotected, it would have been lost long ago and all of us today would be Godless.

This is the only way to get religious people to understand why copyright as it is implemented today is evil.

 

[Danman]

Screw that, I'd still share.