Talk:Ethics of file sharing

message: It seems like this page is talking about a specific case of Intellectual property law.  Shouldn't these pages be tied together much more (perhaps with this one merged into the other)? JoshDuffMan (talk) 08:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category? 

message: This article reads like a high school essay.
:If "Why?" means why didn't I delete more radically, I wouldn't object if you did. Art LaPella 02:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just submitted some contributions, but this article needs a substantial revamp and I don't feel like making it jump from "quick essay" to "scholarly article". Not sure if revamping it is worth it since the subject is already somewhat covered in related pages. However, this article surely could present a handful of links to scientific literature on ethics and file sharing (are there any? dunno), since that would fit better here than in the related pages (File sharing, File sharing and the law, etc.). 143.54.12.145 (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (Pointless rambling follows) Is there an actual field of study called ethics of file sharing? The whole article reads like original research. Of course, someone, somewhere, has performed an adequate study on the whole moral/social phenomenon of repression and criminalization of data transfer due to segments of such data mapping to intangible mental goods such as 'songs'. But without that hypothetical high-quality reference, this article is just a second-hand rendition of already poor propaganda (from several sides of the argument, none the less). But as an inclusionist, I wouldn't just delete this, as it is a serious issue. "Am I being ethic copying this song?" surely crosses the minds of hundreds of millions of people that download songs from eMule and etc., many of them feeling somewhat guilty. So this page may help some people. I guess If I ever come across some decent references, then I'll include them here... (p.s.: I'm the previous IP commenter, but at home). 189.30.195.197 (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: As has been talked about before on this page, this article is very simple and could be expanded a lot. I was thinking of totally rewriting this article. I already have a 6 page paper, written for an english class, on this subject and was thinking of putting a form of it on wikipedia. I will try to make sure this is unbiased and has sources to back up what is said. I can start writing it and you guys can tell me what you think.
--mderrick 08:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made some changes to the article and am planning on posting the new article here very soon. Go to my user page to see the changes.--Mderrick 01:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I finished rewriting the article and posted it, I hope you like it. I tried to keep it unbiased by giving both sides of the issue and fair shake. I also removed the stub tags, but feel fee to add more or edit if you feel it is needed. --Mderrick 05:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Article 

message: the bit about copying whole copyrighted songs on a hard drive being equivalent to jotting down quotes on a piece of paper, while cute, is complete nonsense IMO.  I'm all for filesharing and the downfall of the current copyright paradigm, but this just makes the filesharing demographic look bad.  The major difference between the two is fair use, please look into it.  Copying a movie is infringement, quoting it or parodying it is fair use.  It sounds like this argument is getting into a far broader and less cut-and-pasted issue, that of whether ideas can be owned.  Like the indian chief said, "how can you own the sky?", the issue of owning music, it can be argued, is similarly flawed.  If noone objects I'm going to delete this later, when I'm not slacking on the job *shhhh*.  malenkylizards  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.196.108.39 (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: piece of paper??

message: "1. The car.
If person A takes person B's car, in the night, for a joy ride, and before returning it the next morning, fills the fuel tank back up and washes the car, B has suffered no financial loss. He likely would not even know that the car had been borrowed.
Indeed, in some jurisdictions, such as the UK, this would not even be theft. (Theft in the UK is defined by statute to be the dishonest appropriation of property which belongs to another with an intention to permanently deprive them of it.) Nonetheless, most would agree that A has acted immorally, through the violation of B's property rights, even though he caused no harm.
2. The Bath.
C is having a bath. D stands next to the bath and disrobes. C tells D to go away, but instead, D urinates in the bath. D has not harmed C in a tangible manner. C can still sell the bathtub. C's bath is no less useful. D is healthy, and, like all healthy people, his urine is sterile. If C was asleep, he wouldn't have even known. Nonetheless, people would regard D's act as immoral. This is because the bath is intimately linked to C. Urinating in the bath is a violation of his right to enjoy his bath as he sees fit.
3. The donut shop. 
E runs a donut shop. Every day, he closes at 5pm. He can only sell fresh donuts, and so throws out all his donuts at the end of the day. F goes to the shop at 4:55, and says "Look, the street is empty. No-one is going to buy your donuts.  Give them to me.  E refuses, and offers to sell the donuts to F. F refuses to pay, and runs off with the donuts. The next day, F sets up a stall next to E's shop, and sells the stale donuts for half of E's price. E complains, but F laughs, saying "Look, I did nothing wrong. I didn't cause you any loss. You were going to throw out the donuts. Now look, some people just want to try a donut without paying full price. I'm actually helping you. Some of your biggest customers today have bought donuts from me too!"
Indeed, despite his arguments, some people would regard F's actions as immoral. "
Please cite sources for the above "analogies". 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
93.82.12.144 (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is original research! This is just plain opinion and should not be part of an article on wikipedia! 

message: After the page has been restored (without prejudice to merge, as discussed here: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 4‎), I've proceeded with clean-up (mostly removing WP:OR) and further merge to File sharing. Ipsign (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up and merge