Piracy in islam?

[qassy!]

its stealing, therefore its haram.

 

[Woodrow]

You never entered into a contract with the author, at least not in the case of books. And I don't think the 'I agree' statement at the installing of a program is a valid contract islamically, though I may be wrong.

If you're talking about a contract with the state to obey its laws, what if your state does not have copyright laws, or you're underage?

The one who is initially committing the crime is the person who uploaded the material to be downloaded. The concept of legal or legal will be based upon the expectation of the person who downloads it knows it is pirated material.

In other words that person would not be guilty if there was no way for the person to be able to find out it is illegal. Only the person who up loaded would be.

However, once it is obvious that the person downloading knows it is illegal, that person is as guilty as the one who uploaded it.

Now, if your state does not have copy right laws, you will find that most countries have laws that forbid distributing copyright material into the state.

In most cases it is the person who uploads the material that is prosecuted. However, there is a push on to prosecute those who download, especially large amounts.

Most ISP's now monitor bandwidth usage and here in the states a person who is uploading and/or downloading a large amount will be investigated.

Overall if we have reason to think we are engaging in an illegal activity, let us stop and reflect over it. No sense in trying to find justification for a crime. A crime is a crime, even if we disagree with it being one.

 

[crayon]

I agree with Abdul Fattah, that piracy is not technically stealing, but it should be illegal, because like whatsthepoint said, it decreases the profit of the original author.

Personally, I don't mind if someone saves a photo of mine, uses it as a wallpaper, etc. What I do mind is someone claiming one of my photos as my own, altering it in anyway and calling it their own, selling it, giving permission for anyone to use it.

Everything online is fair game, I guess, so I always watermark my images before putting them up online. I also never put up the large resolution image, just small enough so that if printed the quality would be bad.

 

[qassy!]

I agree with Abdul Fattah, that piracy is not technically stealing, but it should be illegal, because like whatsthepoint said, it decreases the profit of the original author.

Copyright stops the party from copying content that is not owned by you. COpying the copyrighted content is stealing. How would you like it if you made a film spent £40million and then people just download it!

 

[crayon]

Copyright stops the party from copying content that is not owned by you. COpying the copyrighted content is stealing. How would you like it if you made a film spent £40million and then people just download it!

Did you even read Abdul Fattah's post?

 

[qassy!]

Did you even read Abdul Fattah's post?

Nope, I will do, its to long. But Copying somthing that is not yours is stealing!

 

[MaiCarInMtl]

I think it would be considered stealing considering you are taking awya someone's livelyhood and means of support (imagine you work but your boss never pays you, how will you survive?).

Don't get me wrong though, I was a amajor pirate, I have slowed down a lot, and part of me knows its stealing but another part of me know I am getting ripped off too! Why buy a $20 CD if only 2 songs on it are good? As a student, how am I supposed to buy a $700 software I need for a class of mine (most free trials are only good for 30 days - 1/3 of a semester isn't enough)?

 

[qassy!]

I think it would be considered stealing considering you are taking awya someone's livelyhood and means of support (imagine you work but your boss never pays you, how will you survive?).

Don't get me wrong though, I was a amajor pirate, I have slowed down a lot, and part of me knows its stealing but another part of me know I am getting ripped off too! Why buy a $20 CD if only 2 songs on it are good? As a student, how am I supposed to buy a $700 software I need for a class of mine (most free trials are only good for 30 days - 1/3 of a semester isn't enough)?

What you need to understand, alot of money millions, and billions goes into devolving software therefore they make profit by selling a licence to use the software, and iff your a pirate your stealing a liance.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi whatsthepoint

Making a copy of something without the author's permission is stealing. It may not disown the author directly, but it decreases his or her potential profits.

First off all "potential" profits are abstract. You cannot loose something that you never had in the first place.
Secondly, the argument is completely circular. It's true that without protection of intellectual property one cannot make the same amount of profit as one can do with protection of intellectual property. If however you don't believe that an idea or concept can be righteously owned by an individual. In other words if you don't believe in the concept of intelectual property in the first place, those "potential" profits were not rightly theirs in the first place. In other words, the argument you present is depending on wheter or not they have the right to exclusivly make money with that. As an analogy, imagine a wiseguy arguing that not allowing him to collect protection money cuts in his income. Well of course it does, but that doesn't mean the concept of asking for protection money is justified, nor does it mean the money is rightfully theirs.

But really, how do you morally defend the idea that one should pay someone in order to be allowed to copy them? The law against theft can be justified by the well known principle: "My freedom ends where that of another begins.". However, for piracy the same principle no longer prohibits it. Like I said you don't loose anything when your property is copied (except perhaps the concept of exclusivity). In fact I would say quite the opposite. What right does a person have to forbid another person to make something just because he made it first? Here it's the opposite of: "My freedom ends where that of another begins.". You're limiting another's person freedom based on a baseless idea of intellectual property.

Selam aleykum woodrow

True, it does deprive the author ofhis right ful earnings.

Like I said, I disagree that they are "rightfully" theirs, the argument is completely circular. Just because they invested work in it doesn't guarantee that.

It is not stealing in the sense of taking cash money from a person. It is refusal to pay for work performed. If you mow the neighbor's yard, charge $10 and he doesn't pay you, isn't that theft? He did not take any money from you. Same thing when you download copyrighted material. Without an agreement there would be no obligation. In the case of copy right violations, there is a contract, called copyright laws. Sadly, it seems most people never read them and fail to understand that by violating the law, they are violating the contact and depriving a worker of his salary.

Well, the first post I made, I said that first off all, we are expected to follow the law. But that theoretically speaking, I see no reason against piracy. I'd argue it is a completely ethical practive. Take away the law, and the argument fails.

Selam aleykum Qassi!
I've demonstrated quite clearly how piracy is not the same as theft. Just claiming it is and putting exclamationpoints behind it doesn't make it trough.

Copyright stops the party from copying content that is not owned by you. COpying the copyrighted content is stealing. How would you like it if you made a film spent £40million and then people just download it!
What you need to understand, alot of money millions, and billions goes into devolving software therefore they make profit by selling a licence to use the software, and iff your a pirate your stealing a liance.

Let's bring up our gangsteranalogy again. Lets say he invested heavely in automatic weapons, policebribes, hideouts, and so on... Can he claim that protectionmoney is rightfully his because he invested into it? Obviously there would be alot of changes is several branches of entertainment and art. But change isn't necesairly for the worse. All of your arguments are based on the idea that the current system is the right one.

 

[Eeman]

ohhhhhhhhh i dont like the sound of this...
ok so if i go on a like islamic site and there is a e book and i donwload it is that piracy too? $
am i stealing by downloading it...
ohhhhhhh i'm confused now

 

[Abdul Fattah]

By the way, any of you considered that from an Islamic pov, Allah subhana wa ta'ala owns all intelectual property, and therefor nobody can righteously claim something as his creation. We are not creators, but merely discoverors of ideas, ideas already created by Allah subhana wa ta'ala.

 

[barney]

Meh. I thought you were talking about these guys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Pirates

 

[Mahir]

If you had a machine that could make an exact replica of a Ford Ranger, would anyone accuse you of theft?

LOOOL i was thinking the same thing.. i was thinking.. if i had an machine that could copy a camel (By the will of Allah) in Muhammeds(saw) time, would they give me the punnishment!?

 

[crayon]

By the way, any of you considered that from an Islamic pov, Allah subhana wa ta'ala owns all intelectual property, and therefor nobody can righteously claim something as his creation. We are not creators, but merely discoverors of ideas, ideas already created by Allah subhana wa ta'ala.

Well if you're going to look at it that way, since Allah owns everything, all intellectual property as well as material property are his. But that doesn't stop us from acquiring something material (book/land/house/etc) and then selling it, does it? So for example, if you build a house can you claim it as your creation? The materials you used are from Allah and the ideas and knowledge you used to build it are from Allah.

 

[manaal]

What you need to understand, alot of money millions, and billions goes into devolving software therefore they make profit by selling a licence to use the software, and iff your a pirate your stealing a liance.

But if the software is massed produced and sold at a more affordable price, there would be no piracy in the first place. For instance, If only 2 million CD's are made and say 5 million downlaod it illegally, it would be logical for the developer to sell more copies at a cheaper price.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum

Well if you're going to look at it that way, since Allah owns everything, all intellectual property as well as material property are his. But that doesn't stop us from acquiring something material (book/land/house/etc) and then selling it, does it? So for example, if you build a house can you claim it as your creation? The materials you used are from Allah and the ideas and knowledge you used to build it are from Allah.

I already explained the difference between material theft and intelectual piracy. When it comes to material property, there isn't a way to share with everyone, since suplies are limited, like you can't house a whole town in that building of yours. When it comes to intellectual property though, there are no limitations to sharing, and what you have does not diminish. So what you're asking for is not to keep your own stuff, but to keep exclusivity. No offence, but I find that a selfish line of thinking. Basically its saying, I want to milk my gifts from Allah subhana wa ta'ala as much as possible, and not share it for free despite that I wouldn't loose anything by sharing. No matter which way you look at it, the analagy with theft is inapt. If you want to bring up other reasons why piracy should be illegal, feel free to try. But saying that it should be merely on the basis that it has some simularity with theft just doesn't cut the mustard.

 

[Whatsthepoint]

Steve, just because you don't believe in the concept of intellectual property. that doesn't mean nobody does. In fact, the overwhelming majority of artists do, and the law protects them, you are a citizen of Belgium, so by piracy you are breaking Belgian as well as international laws.

By the way, any of you considered that from an Islamic pov, Allah subhana wa ta'ala owns all intelectual property, and therefor nobody can righteously claim something as his creation. We are not creators, but merely discoverors of ideas, ideas already created by Allah subhana wa ta'ala.

So Allah created all ideas, no matter how unislamic they may be?

 

[crayon]

Selam aleykum


I already explained the difference between material theft and intelectual piracy. When it comes to material property, there isn't a way to share with everyone, since suplies are limited, like you can't house a whole town in that building of yours. When it comes to intellectual property though, there are no limitations to sharing, and what you have does not diminish. So what you're asking for is not to keep your own stuff, but to keep exclusivity. No offence, but I find that a selfish line of thinking. Basically its saying, I want to milk my gifts from Allah subhana wa ta'ala as much as possible, and not share it for free despite that I wouldn't loose anything by sharing. No matter which way you look at it, the analagy with theft is inapt. If you want to bring up other reasons why piracy should be illegal, feel free to try. But saying that it should be merely on the basis that it has some simularity with theft just doesn't cut the mustard.

I understand what you mean, but a lot of the time, it isn't just knowledge that goes into making something immaterial (a novel/piece of music/etc), but a lot of time and effort. So a part of the profit of these things are not ONLY for the knowledge, but for the time and effort it took to make these things.

For example, I spend a lot of time taking photos/editing them/circulating them. I spend money to buy my camera/lenses/film/developing. So if someone takes a photo of mine, without paying me, and sells it, or even keeps it to themselves, they are gaining without having worked for it.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi whatsthepoint

Steve, just because you don't believe in the concept of intellectual property. that doesn't mean nobody does. In fact, the overwhelming majority of artists do, and the law protects them,

I know that, but last I checked the rules of philosophy of etics, they are not established by the opinions of majority. And specificly not the artists, since they have a conflict of interests.

you are a citizen of Belgium, so by piracy you are breaking Belgian as well as international laws.

Why does everybody keep coming back to that? I already said in my opening post. That first off all one needs to follow the law, but that I see no logical arguments behind that law. I'm not arguing what th law does or doesn't say, I'm arguing what it should say.

So Allah created all ideas, no matter how unislamic they may be?

Yes, according to Islam, Allah subhana wa ta'ala created everything. Even created the devil, knowing very well what he would eventually do. Some people might see a conflict in that, I dont. As interesting as I might find that, it's a bit off topic here.

Selam aleykum Crayon

I understand what you mean, but a lot of the time, it isn't just knowledge that goes into making something immaterial (a novel/piece of music/etc), but a lot of time and effort. So a part of the profit of these things are not ONLY for the knowledge, but for the time and effort it took to make these things.

Well a lot of people invest time effort and money in things that benefits others without gaining money from it. I understand your position, but the argument is circular. You invetsed these things, with the knowledge that the state would protect your intellectual property. If there were no copyrightlaws, perhaps you would have gotten into the same buisness afterall, thinking you would still have some advantage over your copying competitors, or maybe you would have looked for another line of buisness, and merely have taken up photography in your leisure time. So again, the problem with the argument is, that it assumes the exclusive rights belong to the artists. The fact that someone chooses to invest into something is their own choice, and I don't see why another person shouldn't be alowed to reproduce something, just because someone else invested into it.

For example, I spend a lot of time taking photos/editing them/circulating them. I spend money to buy my camera/lenses/film/developing. So if someone takes a photo of mine, without paying me, and sells it, or even keeps it to themselves, they are gaining without having worked for it.

Well, if copyrights laws would be gone, then people wouldn't buy their copy, so nobody would gain from pirated. It doesn't mean that the buisness would die out either, people could still earn money making pictures on commision, like for a newspaper for example.

 

[Whatsthepoint]

Hi whatsthepoint
I know that, but last I checked the rules of philosophy of etics, they are not established by the opinions of majority. And specificly not the artists, since they have a conflict of interests.

I was just saying why the law is there. Because artists, inventors etc want it.
As for the ethic, I already told you piracy deprives the author from his full potential profits, it doesn't matter if they're abstract. The point is, as Woodrow stated, that the wprk done isn't payed for.
I don't think ethical norms are absolute, but I personally think piracy is wrong, probably because I wouldn't like it myself, if my work were pirated.