Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: Raoul76 on August 22, 2011, 03:35:41 PM
-
I have to leave for an appointment in a second, but I wanted to get the site's opinion on this. Is downloading CDs off the Internet really theft? I mean, clear-cut theft?
Allow me to get Jesuitical.
Some people say it's not theft. Some say it is. I think the truth lies in between. If it is theft, pure and simple, then downloading a CD even if you never listen to it would also be theft. But that is ridiculous. Music files you download, and that are never heard, do not cause actual loss to the artist, whereas a ring that is taken from a jewelry store can never be sold, and the owner takes a loss. Clearly, it's not the same, which is probably why people go back and forth on this topic without ever coming to any clear answers. In the days of cassette tapes, when people used to copy them for friends, there was not such a hubbub over "stealing music." It was common.
Where it becomes theft, I would say, is if you intend to keep the stolen / burned CD, listening to it repeatedly, never intending to buy the real copy for that reason. You are then in POSSESSION of music that you otherwise would have paid for, thus causing a loss to the artist and their music company. But this is a very confusing grey area, because there is nothing immoral, nor even anything illegal according to the secular law, in recording movies off TV. By this logic, it shouldn't be illegal to download music, only in copying it and selling it. There's a contradiction here.
All of these things make it very difficult to say that downloading music is theft, although something about it DOES feel wrong. Someone who never intends to spend a single cent and racks up a huge collection of downloaded CDs, how can this not be, at some level, immoral?
My question is, at what point does restitution have to be made? If you had once had downloaded CDs and enjoyed them, but you have changed your tastes and no longer use them, do you have to make reparation for having used them in the past? What if you only listened to it once and were on the fence about whether you liked it or not? How much would you have to listen to a downloaded CD before it became actual theft -- because I think everyone will agree it can't be theft to download a CD and sample some of the tracks to see if you want to eventually buy it.
-
I'm no expert on this, but I think you're right that it's not really theft just to download a CD and see if you're interested in buying it. I'd say you're fine.
-
One thing I just thought of -- in the case of movies playing on TV, the film company has made a profit by selling the rights of the films to the TV station. So they are not necessarily losing money when you copy it, although it is true that if you do that, you are unlikely to buy the DVD.
In the case of downloaded music, though, there is no profit whatsoever for the artist or his company.
-
I didn't say I had or hadn't downloaded CDs, Spiritus, we're speaking hypothetically here.
-
Ah, IP law (intellectual property). What a fascinating stumbling act the non-Catholic world does when this issue comes up.
In my opinion, I believe it is theft if you have it, listen to it (repeatedly) and still do not patronize the artist or producer. Imagine if everyone ( I mean not ONE person ever purchased this thing I'll mention shortly..) took a perfect photographic image of some artist's painting, only to take home to some $50k printer, frame it, and hang at home. Does not the artist have a right to a fair wage or any wages at all due to his interest in using his talent for a sale?
-
And this isnt really an "agonizing" moral theological question... lol. When I opened the thread, I was waiting for some question based on greed of one's possessions, or lust after a flirty female.
-
Fortunately for us, the music that costs the most is generally the trash you shouldn't be listening to anyhow. Classical music, folk songs, kid sing-a-longs ... all pretty cheap to acquire.
Recording music off the radio would be the equivalent to recording TV and you're still free to do so all you'd like. They get paid via the advertising in these mediums.
-
Intellectual property doesn't necessarily give the possessor the same rights as the owner of tangible property.
Just as one's duty to pay taxes isn't the same necessarily as one's ordinary debts.
-
Whenever this question comes up on Catholic Answers, it receives a plethora of responses. It is very, very tricky -- thus agonizing -- Party Is Over, especially for those who feel it might have some bearing on their salvation but can't get anything remotely like a clear, consistent answer. I think trads probably download less music than Novus Ordo Catholics, but I wasn't always a trad nor a Novus Ordo Catholic. That isn't to say that I did or didn't download thousands upon thousands of CDs before I was baptized.
I thought this would be interesting for certain more theologically experienced minds to investigate. Many of the Catholic Answers people, who probably are extremely liberal with dogmatic theology, are extraordinarily strict and Pharisee-like when it comes to moral theology. There are some on that site who say downloading music is "stealing" point blank, every time, and this is clearly wrong for the following reasons:
( a ) We are supposed to follow the secular law, yes, but the spirit of it and not the letter -- does anyone drive at PRECISELY the speed limit?
( b ) There is the matter of people recording songs off the radio. Some say that only certain songs are played on the radio, the ones the record company releases to the public, but in reality, sometimes the entire album is played, or other songs not released officially are played.
On classical music stations, an entire piano or violin concerto or symphony that comprises more than half of a current release is commonly played. Would it be wrong to record music off of this station? I think everyone would agree it would be scrupulous to say yes.
The logic is, "Well, the copy won't sound quite as good." Okay -- then I'll use the same logic for a downloaded CD, such as that you don't get the cover art and liner art, the notes, the lyrics, the whole "experience" of buying a CD, complete with pictures of the scantily-clad "star" who made it. Sometimes the CDs you buy have special features, videos that you gain access to if you pop it in the computer player. Therefore, just as a recording off the radio is not the same, a downloaded CD is not the same as one you buy.
( c ) We are supposed to follow just laws. Many of the laws regarding copyright are incoherent, unjust, insane, or a combination of the three. People will be randomly sued for downloading music, people who have 20 songs on their computer perhaps, while others have a million, and they will be asked to pay some arbitrarily high amount of money. Would the people who think downloading music is theft dare to justify that kind of craziness?
( d ) Copyright infringment is not the same as theft. This is a critical distinction people miss when they try to bring in the 6th commandment.
Someone on Catholic Answers with a more nuanced, Jesuitical mind -- which is required to figure this problem out -- brought up a decision of the Supreme Court, Dowling v. United States:
"[Copyright infringement ] does not easily equate with theft, conversion or fraud... The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over copyright, not does he wholly deprive its owner of its use."
******************
I am not saying that it's right to download music and never pay for it. But if you download it for the purpose of sampling a CD, though this is not what the record companies want, you cannot call it theft. It just goes against what they want, and what they have manipulated ( bought? ) the law into going along with.
If a sin is involved in downloading just to sample, it is the sin of breaking the law. But let's face it, we all do that in numerous ways every day. It would be impossible to live in this red-tape-festooned society if we didn't.
While the recording companies don't want people to download music, going against their wants isn't necessarily stealing. Stealing is when someone is deprived of a good that belongs to them. There is no way to say that someone who downloads a CD isn't borrowing rather than stealing; it's all about his intent. Someone who does this may actually have no intention whatsoever to buy a certain CD, but since he can download it for free, he does so. The record company does not actually LOSE anything, the way that a seller of antiques loses something if someone comes into his store and makes off with an emerald-encrusted Tiki mask.
In fact, the record company may gain something, because this person who otherwise wouldn't be interested may end up liking the downloaded CD so much that he buys it. This adds more grey area. Can anyone say that downloading harms record sales instead of increasing them? It is evident that it gives certain artists more exposure than they would have otherwise, and that they tacitly support it for that reason. Unexpected benefits to the record companies would not, of course, justify the theft of CDs, if downloading was always theft. But I have just shown, I believe, why it isn't.
Where the record company / artist do lose something is if someone who WOULD buy the music otherwise doesn't do so, because he is satisfied with his copy.
Therefore, to me, if there is a line to be crossed, it is crossed when the intention becomes to keep the downloaded copy and never buy a hard copy. For this to happen, the file-sharer in question would have to know ( a ) That he wants this particular CD in his collection and ( b ) That, nevertheless, he intends never to purchase it. He could have a CD for years and years without ever reaching this point, perhaps being on the fence quasi-permanently about certain CDs.
It would be very hard to ever say when someone has stolen the thing or not. It would be between God and the file-sharer, like NFP is between the priest and the couple and God. There are no fixed rules for using it, just like there are no fixed rules for the ethics of downloading. You just have to listen to what God is telling you. If you really, really like something and never want to be without it, then buy it. You have to be careful not to fool yourself into thinking you are only lukewarm about a certain CD, to give yourself an excuse not to buy it, when in reality you love it. If you find yourself playing it more than once a week, that would be your first clue. But I know of a person ( not saying it's necessarily me ) who had tons of downloaded CDs that he never got around to listening to at all, or heard only once, or only in part. Could this be theft?
***************
That is what I have come up with. Keep in mind this is just a layman's opinion reached after a day of contemplation, and thus is worth absolutely zilch. No one should act on my advice. On second thought, I'm not giving any advice, but rather thinking out loud.
I am going to ask Father Gabriel at CMRI to see what he thinks. I already did ask Father Dominic, but he seemed unsure, as most people are on this topic. He zig-zagged and made it about something else -- does the person who downloaded the music know, at the time they do so, that they are stealing? If they don't, then it is not sin. I think sometimes that is hard to assess, though, because to this day, no one knows if it's stealing or not, the way that EVERYONE knows that taking a gold nugget from an old lady's house is stealing. I think that the reason why no one knows if it is or isn't stealing has been solved in this post -- it doesn't become stealing or anything even close to it unless you have a firm intention to NEVER buy the CD you have downloaded. In my opinion...
People who do it will often feel that something is wrong with what they're doing, especially when they reach the point where they realize they're no longer buying CDs and are just downloading everything. But I don't think they would equate the "wrongness" they feel to something as clear-cut as theft. It's more like an indefinite borrowing that has uncomfortable similarities to theft, and can become theft, but in a way that is very hard to acknowledge or recognize, while "classic" kinds of theft, like shoplifting, are blatantly theft.
There is another aspect to all this, something that no one on Catholic Answers even mentioned -- whether, if it is a sin to download music, reparation must be made. Most of them assume that it's enough to just get rid of the downloads. But this is an inconsistency. If it is theft, shouldn't reparation be made?
-
Telesphorus said:
Intellectual property doesn't necessarily give the possessor the same rights as the owner of tangible property.
Just as one's duty to pay taxes isn't the same necessarily as one's ordinary debts.
I agree with the first part, that is another way of saying that copyright infringement is not the same as theft ( though the lines can blur ).
In the second part, I'm not sure if you are going as far, but that smacks of the Freeman on the Land kind of logic; the government is corrupt, and thus we can rip them off at will. To me, that is a slippery slope. It pretty much directly contradicts "Render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's." Can one really just walk away from a debt with impunity because they were tricked by an evil, sham system to incur the debt? I would say their culpability is lessened somewhat in God's eyes, but not entirely obliterated.
Of course, you are not saying that one's guilt about not paying taxes is eliminated, you are saying that taxes aren't the same as other kinds of debts. I am too exhausted to think about that one at the moment but it sounds about right.
-
Do you ever feel excessively wordy, Raoul? : )
To compensate, I'll just say that I largely disagree with everything you said in that lengthy post above. :smirk:
-
I have to leave for an appointment in a second, but I wanted to get the site's opinion on this. Is downloading CDs off the Internet really theft? I mean, clear-cut theft?
Allow me to get Jesuitical.
Some people say it's not theft. Some say it is. I think the truth lies in between. If it is theft, pure and simple, then downloading a CD even if you never listen to it would also be theft. But that is ridiculous. Music files you download, and that are never heard, do not cause actual loss to the artist, whereas a ring that is taken from a jewelry store can never be sold, and the owner takes a loss. Clearly, it's not the same, which is probably why people go back and forth on this topic without ever coming to any clear answers. In the days of cassette tapes, when people used to copy them for friends, there was not such a hubbub over "stealing music." It was common.
Where it becomes theft, I would say, is if you intend to keep the stolen / burned CD, listening to it repeatedly, never intending to buy the real copy for that reason. You are then in POSSESSION of music that you otherwise would have paid for, thus causing a loss to the artist and their music company. But this is a very confusing grey area, because there is nothing immoral, nor even anything illegal according to the secular law, in recording movies off TV. By this logic, it shouldn't be illegal to download music, only in copying it and selling it. There's a contradiction here.
All of these things make it very difficult to say that downloading music is theft, although something about it DOES feel wrong. Someone who never intends to spend a single cent and racks up a huge collection of downloaded CDs, how can this not be, at some level, immoral?
My question is, at what point does restitution have to be made? If you had once had downloaded CDs and enjoyed them, but you have changed your tastes and no longer use them, do you have to make reparation for having used them in the past? What if you only listened to it once and were on the fence about whether you liked it or not? How much would you have to listen to a downloaded CD before it became actual theft -- because I think everyone will agree it can't be theft to download a CD and sample some of the tracks to see if you want to eventually buy it.
In Canada there's no way in hell downloading music can be a sin. Regardless of whether I pay for music or not, they are actually using my tax dollars to fund the music industry. So even if I don't listen to music at all I'd still be paying for it! They can't claim I'm stealing when they're the ones stealing from me :devil2:
-
Yes, sometimes I'm excessively wordy, but believe it or not, not in this thread. I'm not just playing around or showing off, but analyzing a problem from every possible angle -- or trying to. Like a Jesuit or Salamanca theologian, but in a crude way. Nevertheless, it's not only Jesuits or Salamancans who want to find the truth.
Please elaborate on what you disagree with. I don't see how it's possible to disagree with almost everything there, because parts of it are undeniable. You have to give some reasons!
Do you believe downloading a CD is always theft? If you sample it to see if you want to buy it, is that theft? If not, then you have to admit, it is not always theft to download CDs... This opens the door to all the grey area. People who deny the grey area here puzzle me; but I was the same way with NFP.
-
That's another interesting point, Daegus, thank you for mentioning it.
In Canada, indeed, downloading music is not against the law. Would you say, Mater, that it is still against God's law?
-
Please elaborate on what you disagree with. I don't see how it's possible to disagree with almost everything there, because parts of it are undeniable. You have to give some reasons!
I will. I'm just unavailable to do so at the moment. The baby doesn't seem as interested as we are in the question at the moment. :baby: :smirk:
-
I didn't read the very long post either.
If you are downloading music from our enemies or evil people, I don't think it is a sin.
It would more likely be a sin to give money to heretics who may be producing this music that is an occassion of sin for some.
I have a question along a similar line..that is these moral conflicts that come up as a result of the internet...is it a sin to be anonymous on the internet? To deliberately hide your identity or tell white lies about yourself as an assumed avatar on a chat board?
-
I tend to lean toward the side that says it is not theft.
I think the point that you can download music just like you can record your favorite TV show (for me there is no favorite as its all garbage) or record a movie for your own personal use.
The makers of music are well aware that music can be downloaded free and as they really still have there music after you have downloaded it, I would say that it doesn't quite fit into the theft category.
I think if you did it to make money off it and spread it around, that would be wrong though I see no problems downloading it for personal use.
-
Taxed for music in Canada?? That's interesting. Care to elaborate? Is this all music or certain kinds?
-
I agree that there are grey areas with this, but I think it makes more sense to approach discerning what is and isn't sinful (and to what degree) by trying to determine the intention of the person creating or distributing the music rather than the intention of the listener.
If you called me up and asked for a sample of the music I sell so that you could determine if you'd like to buy it, in a really generous mood, I'd give you one, complete track. Normally, I'd point you to where you can listen to four or five 30-second samples. So, yes, I think if you download my entire CD in order to "sample" it, I'd call you a thief.
More to come, but I like short posts. :wink:
-
( b ) There is the matter of people recording songs off the radio. Some say that only certain songs are played on the radio, the ones the record company releases to the public, but in reality, sometimes the entire album is played, or other songs not released officially are played.
On classical music stations, an entire piano or violin concerto or symphony that comprises more than half of a current release is commonly played. Would it be wrong to record music off of this station? I think everyone would agree it would be scrupulous to say yes.
The radio is an understood medium. As in, what can and can not happen when a song is played on the radio is a known that the distributor takes into consideration when determining what the cost to the radio station will be for playing that song. The ability to record a specific song from the radio (even Internet radio) is known possibility that the distributor has decided is acceptable due to the profit they make in allowing the radio station to play the song. What they're giving and getting are knowns with minimal variation and they've decided for themselves that the exchange is acceptable.
-
I have a question along a similar line..that is these moral conflicts that come up as a result of the internet...is it a sin to be anonymous on the internet? To deliberately hide your identity or tell white lies about yourself as an assumed avatar on a chat board?
Gee I hope not!
Regarding online forum anonymity: No, it is not a sin, because you are merely withholding personal information the knowledge of which it is neither proper nor necessary for others to know: in fact, people on the internet cannot claim a right to know what pertains to your person. Revealing such things may be imprudent at times.
Regarding "white lies:" The culpability of these lies depends on the intention whereby one pronounces such lies and situational factors and consequences that may lead to scandal (i.e., white lies can lead to more white lies, to more complex white lies, to copying and pasting stuff from Wikipedia). Just don't do it.
On the other hand, I personally opine that it is a sin for a Priest or Bishop to anonymously participate on internet forum or chat rooms, and it is a cause of great scandal for them to tell "white lies" while doing so for whatever reason.
This is why I don't like Traditio. "Father Moderator" and the "Traditio Fathers" could be anyone or anything, and they are using their self-imposed "clerical authority" to promulgate gross errors and and pronounce moral judgments that are mostly erroneous and scandalous.
Priests and Bishops should avoid the internet anyways. They are supposed to be busy with either prayer or tending to souls. They should only use email for purposes of contacting the faithful who submit inquiries or have no other means of communicating with them.
-
If you called me up and asked for a sample of the music I sell so that you could determine if you'd like to buy it, in a really generous mood, I'd give you one, complete track. Normally, I'd point you to where you can listen to four or five 30-second samples. So, yes, I think if you download my entire CD in order to "sample" it, I'd call you a thief.
Downloading isn't taking someone's possessions. No one who infringes copyright is a "thief." They may be infringing on other people's legal rights and possibly natural rights, but it's not stealing.
Exploiting another's work for gain is wrong. If someone had to break into the owner's computer to take data, that's a form of theft. But if someone puts data out there with the legal claim of "ownership" - even though the data isn't truly owned (because it's freely available to be copied at no cost) - then it cannot be called theft.
I'm not saying it's morally right, but I don't believe for a minute that someone who copies music files is despoiling someone else of true possessions. No one can truly "own" freely available data. Having the exclusive legal right to profit from something is one thing. But trying to control freely available data is like trying to control air.
If someone wants to profit from their data, they must ensure it's security. If someone steals the data by some sort of intrusion, that would be a form of theft. Otherwise not.
-
I would say code-breaking and decryption are not intrusive.
Breaking into another's computer, however, is.
-
If a sin is involved in downloading just to sample, it is the sin of breaking the law.
It's not about the law. The law is just there to protect those whose livelihoods are in writing, recording, editing, and distributing music. What you've done is taken something from them that they haven't agreed to let you have. It would be silly for them not to provide you any means to sample their work and it's up to them to decide what is acceptable in "sampling" and what is not.
-
It's not about the law. The law is just there to protect those whose livelihoods are in writing, recording, editing, and distributing music. What you've done is taken something from them that they haven't agreed to let you have.
Why is their agreement necessary to have it? It is not theirs to dispose of - it is not a physical possession.
It would be silly for them not to provide you any means to sample their work and it's up to them to decide what is acceptable in "sampling" and what is not.
It is silly to claim to "own" something that by its very nature cannot be owned.
-
If you called me up and asked for a sample of the music I sell so that you could determine if you'd like to buy it, in a really generous mood, I'd give you one, complete track. Normally, I'd point you to where you can listen to four or five 30-second samples. So, yes, I think if you download my entire CD in order to "sample" it, I'd call you a thief.
Downloading isn't taking someone's possessions. No one who infringes copyright is a "thief." They may be infringing on other people's legal rights and possibly natural rights, but it's not stealing.
Exploiting another's work for gain is wrong. If someone had to break into the owner's computer to take data, that's a form of theft. But if someone puts data out there with the legal claim of "ownership" - even though the data isn't truly owned (because it's freely available to be copied at no cost) - then it cannot be called theft.
I'm not saying it's morally right, but I don't believe for a minute that someone who copies music files is despoiling someone else of true possessions. No one can truly "own" freely available data. Having the exclusive legal right to profit from something is one thing. But trying to control freely available data is like trying to control air.
If someone wants to profit from their data, they must ensure it's security. If someone steals the data by some sort of intrusion, that would be a form of theft. Otherwise not.
I was under the impression he wasn't so much concerned about how exactly it was wrong, but rather whether or not it was wrong to do so.
To say it's not theft but rather exploitation or ____ just adds confusion if you're still saying that it's morally wrong.
-
It's not about the law. The law is just there to protect those whose livelihoods are in writing, recording, editing, and distributing music. What you've done is taken something from them that they haven't agreed to let you have.
Why is their agreement necessary to have it? It is not theirs to dispose of - it is not a physical possession.
It would be silly for them not to provide you any means to sample their work and it's up to them to decide what is acceptable in "sampling" and what is not.
It is silly to claim to "own" something that by its very nature cannot be owned.
Would it then be wrong to take a physical item I've sold you (a CD) and turn it into a digital item that then cannot be owned?
-
To say it's not theft but rather exploitation or ____ just adds confusion if you're still saying that it's morally wrong.
People can have rights with regard to something without being able to claim a right of ownership.
It isn't just to call downloaders "thieves" - anymore than it's right to call someone who sings a song without paying royalties a "thief." Nothing was taken from the "owner." Nothing was taken - because nothing was owned.
What the copyright owner (he "owns" a "right" - not the song, not Archbishop Lefebvre's sermons) has is a right to litigate and collect damages from those who seriously harm their legal right to profit from their copyrighted materials.
This is not an illegitimate right, but it does not make those who infringe it thieves.
I think it's very very wrong to call someone a "thief" for violating copyright - almost тαℓмυdic.
There are many people who have downloaded many songs who would never steal another person's possessions. It's not theft.
Yes. To put this in perspective - anyone who says that someone who disseminates Archbishop Lefebvre's sermons without permission is a "thief" is commiting slander. Such a person has no regard to the true Right - they care about legal rights - but not about righteousness.
-
Would it then be wrong to take a physical item I've sold you (a CD) and turn it into a digital item that then cannot be owned?
If you didn't want someone to use data then you shouldn't give them the data. Data is data. It's not a possession. Making a copy of something is not stealing.
-
You sound like a lawyer and thus are confusing me. I hope that's not a strategy. : )
So, you buy my CD, copy it and email the music to a fellow music lover and you don't think depriving me of the potential sale is morally wrong?
-
i want to correct something I said before.
I said "breaking into another's computer" to take data is theft. While I do think it is seriously morally wrong I'm not sure it's truly theft. It does violate another person's property rights, and is a form of intrusion that is immoral. But merely copying data does not cause the loss of the data.
Stealing a CD would be theft. Copying a CD is not.
-
So, you buy my CD, copy it and email the music to a fellow music lover and you don't think depriving me of the potential sale is morally wrong?
It could be morally wrong but it is not stealing. There is no object that you own that was taken from you.
You may have the right to litigate and collect damages if serious harm was done to the potential renumeration you might receive from the legal privilege the government granted by means of "copyright" - but nothing was stolen from you.
You know, copyrights automatically expire.
The ownership of a true possession cannot automatically expire.
A true possession always belongs to someone unless it's lost or unclaimed - to be of use it must be owned by someone, or at least under the control of certain people.
But a copyright expires and the information becomes freely distributable by law because the information is not a possession.
-
There Ancient Germans had the death penalty for theft. The Muslims cut off people's hands.
Horse thieves and looters have been shot on sight.
Could anyone sanely apply such penalties to copyright infringement?
Someone sins by using a "mental reservation" when there is no justification - but that is not a lie.
Someone might break the 5th Commandment by hitting someone - that doesn't make the person a murderer.
Whether copyright infringement is sinful depends on the circuмstances. In my opinion, it is up to the owners of copyright to secure and enforce their legal rights.
It is not the special obligation of the user of such materials to ensure he never infringes on those legal rights.
-
Is there a point to determining the legality before determining if downloading music is moral?
-
Is there a point to determining the legality before determining if downloading music is moral?
Letter of the law legality by itself doesn't determine if downloading is moral or immoral.
I think it's up to the individual conscience.
For example, suppose someone wants to hear a seminar.
And they test out the seminar and come to the conclusion that it's a scam.
Should they feel obligated to pay for it?
-
Is there a point to determining the legality before determining if downloading music is moral?
Letter of the law legality by itself doesn't determine if downloading is moral or immoral.
I think it's up to the individual conscience.
For example, suppose someone wants to hear a seminar.
And they test out the seminar and come to the conclusion that it's a scam.
Should they feel obligated to pay for it?
It's hard to say as you shouldn't put yourself in that position to begin with.
Many such things offer a money-back guarantee. Customer reviews are another option for determining the worth of the content before you buy. If the seller offers nothing of this sort, it's probably a good indication that it's a scam to begin with. As it's not the developer's intention for you to download the product in it's entirety as a preview, they likely offer you something to ensure that you're happy with your purchase.
-
Tele is making some incisive points here.
That is why I opened this thread. I have been thinking about this subject so much that my brain is shutting down. I wanted to hear other people chime in, to show these issues in a fresh light.
But I do know that the people saying that downloading is automatically theft on Catholic Answers are beginners in moral theology. I was there; I know what it is to see things in black-and-white. But it just doesn't work in this case.
Breaking the secular law is not always a sin. We break them every day. Do you always cross at the crosswalk? Follow the exact speed limit? If you are downloading the latest update of Adobe do you read through all the legalese when it tells you to "Read this and click continue if you agree"? If you don't, are you lying? It is the spirit of the secular law that matters, just like the spirit of the divine law.
Here is the proof. Take driving in the fast lane on the freeway. If you are going under the speed limit in Los Angeles, you could get pulled over for going too slow, yet you are perfectly within the law! You could actually get punished for following the letter of the law in that case... I think God shows us these things for our instruction. He doesn't want us to just be a bunch of automatons.
Mater, when you go on YouTube, would you watch a conspiracy-theory video that uses recorded music but doesn't credit the artists? If you do, aren't you participating in "theft"? ( Yes, using snippets of songs is part of fair use, but what about the whole song? )
As for the example of your CD that someone hands to someone else... What if that second person never would have heard of you otherwise? Do you see that downloading music opens as many opportunities, or more, than it closes? Do you think so many bands could have such huge audiences around the world without it? Not that that is a good thing, but you know what I mean.
If it's theft, that doesn't mean it's right, even if it benefits you ultimately. But downloading music just doesn't meet the qualifications for theft. Tele makes another good point when he says that there are many people who would download music who would never steal. That shows that even if, in their gut, they feel something is wrong with it, they may not think of it as clear-cut stealing. There may be a part of them that says, "Well, I want to live with this for a while to see if I want to buy it..." Or they may intend to keep it, while knowing it isn't as good as a hard copy because it lacks the art, lyrics, the satisfaction of owning the "official" product, etc. They may think of it as sort of like stealing, in a way that's hard to describe, but not in the same way that going into someone's bedroom and taking their wallet is stealing. Or they may think of it as stealing and not care. But like with NFP, it seems it depends on the intent. That's the best way I can figure it.
Just because the recording artists and their studios want to control the information by releasing a little ditty here, a little ditty there, to entice us to buy the entire CD, doesn't mean that it is a sin to go against their marketing plan. Again, to make this simple, would you say it is wrong if someone CLEARLY downloads an album to listen to it once and make a decision if it's good? Why should he have to buy an entire album on the basis of one or two hit singles when more information is available? And if it's not wrong to listen to it once for the purposes of investigation, then can you say it's wrong to listen to it ten times? Twenty times?
If downloading an album on this basis is stealing, it is also stealing to borrow a CD from someone and listening to it all the way through over and over. The people who download it to sample it just may not happen to have a personal friend who has a copy.
You can say, no, because in the case of the CD being borrowed, someone bought it. Well, someone also bought it and put it on the Internet to be downloaded... It's not a difference in kind, but in degree. More people have access to uploaded CDs on a file-sharing program, and thus it seems more dramatically wrong, because so many can listen free of charge. But in effect, it's the same principle as borrowing, if such is the intent of the downloader... And theoretically, someone can borrow for a long time before deciding to buy.
Where it becomes wrong, I would say, is in the intent. From what I can tell, it becomes wrong when you decide to keep the burned CD and give up any and all prospects of ever buying it. But even then I'm not sure, because a downloaded CD is not the same as having the actual product. I can imagine someone who downloads music, with the intent to never buy it, but who feels that it isn't as good and that if he had the money he would buy it, to have the artwork and the concrete product in his collection. He may not think of it as stealing but as a temporary fix due to having no money. Therefore his culpability is lessened, even if it is objectively stealing.
But that is just my opinion; I want to hear what some priests have to say. I also want to know if restitution is necessary for those who have downloaded AND uploaded CDs. Some people have thousands of CDs on their hard drive and they are being downloaded hundreds of times every day... How would you make restitution for that, if it is a sin JUST to upload?
It can't be a sin just to upload or download. That is a morally neutral act, because it is possible to download for the purpose of merely sampling. In the same way, a tank top is a morally neutral article of clothing. It can be worn under the clothing, in which case it is part of a woman's modest dress; or it can be worn on its own, exposing too much flesh, in which case the wearing of it is sinful. But the tank top in itself is not sinful. It is how it's worn that's sinful.
Same with downloading / uploading. Or the same with NFP -- it is a morally neutral act in itself that becomes sinful or not sinful depending on how it is used ( the conjugal act using NFP is the same for a poor couple about to be evicted from their home, and for a rich couple who have a mansion that can comfortably house a small nation of children, yet the morality of its use is not the same in each case ).
The sin is in how you make use of your download. That is how I think of it at the moment. Perhaps this is why those on Catholic Answers never speak of reparation for the supposed "theft." They say it's enough to just give up their collection of burned CDs. Perhaps that is because, by giving them up, they no longer have the intent to keep intellectual property without paying for it... But do they have to go back and pay for this intellectual property that they enjoyed in the past? So many factors to think about here; it is utterly mind-boggling.
The next step for me is to get into the notion of probabilism, meaning that when you are unsure about something you can safely take the PROBABLE course rather than the course that is absolutely and unequivocally right... But the post is already too long.
-
My definition of probablism was faulty. It is more like, when you have to make a decision, you can take the course that seems probable without necessarily being the most likely. I shouldn't have spoken about an option that is unequivocally right. The whole point of probabalism is it helps us make decisions when there is no choice that is unequivocally right -- just those that are more or less probable.
Why not just let the Catholic Encyclopedia say it:
"Probabilism is the moral system which holds that, when there is question solely of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an action, it is permissible to follow a solidly probable opinion in favour of liberty even though the opposing view is more probable."
Therefore, if it is "solidly probable" that downloading music is not a sin, you can do it. It is more than solidly probable -- indeed, it is most probable -- that downloading music with the purpose to sample it, even indefinitely, is no sin at all, in my opinion.
But likewise in my opinion, that solidity falters when it comes to people keeping music they NEVER intend to pay for. That is something that, as a Catholic, I wouldn't do. But if I had done it before, would I have to go back and make restitution? This becomes more complicated for an adult Catholic convert, since the kind of music he liked before his conversion is unlikely to be what he likes after he converts... So if he were Catholic, he would not have downloaded and kept such music at all. Therefore, is it enough to just give it up? Or would he have to pay for it, because he had enjoyed it with intent to keep it at one time?
Another thought on this matter: You can download lots of music intending to keep it, just because it's so easily available. Lots of these people who have ten thousand downloaded CDs can't possibly have the time to listen to all of it. They take it because it's available. It's easy; one click of the button and it's on your hard drive. It seems insane to ask them to make restitution for all of it.
So I think if I had downloaded CDs in the past, which I may or may not have, I'd make restitution for the ones that aren't openly, egregiously immoral, that I listened to regularly. For the ones that are blasphemous or egregiously immoral in other ways ( beyond the stray curse word ), I'd give something to charity or to church. Certainly, if one had stolen a porno, you wouldn't go make restitution to the porn company.
-
Most of what you've said here is based on your suggestion that it's acceptable to download something in it's entirety for sampling purposes which I disagree with.
If nothing else, I'd call it an occassion of sin. :smirk:
And now I must :sleep:
-
So, you come across a barber shop and the door says "Haircuts $10". You come inside, the barber folds up his newspaper, and you take a seat in the chair. He snips your hair and dusts you off. You take a look in the mirror, are pleased with the results, but decide that you'd rather go with your regular barber who charges only $8 for similar service. So, you thank him for the sample and walk out.
Would this be acceptable behavoir? Why or why not?
-
In that case a concrete service was provided that wasn't paid for. With a CD, you are dealing with digital information that spreads itself like a virus. It's not the same.
To continue with the barber example, it wouldn't be wrong to refuse to pay him if he did a lousy job and gave you a bad haircut. In the world of wine, if the wine is faulty, you can take it back to the wine shop, and they will ask for a refund from the vintner. You don't have to buy a CD that you download and that has stinky tunes.
I talked to Fabiana about this on the phone. She laid it out very clearly. In the case of information floating around in the digital realm, nothing was stolen. No actual goods were lost. The seller of the music did not actually LOSE anything, he just didn't gain anything. She said it was absurd to try to make reparation to someone who didn't actually lose a thing.
Just because someone downloads a CD, does not mean they were going to buy it otherwise... They downloaded it just because they could, because it was there. The people who download fifty thousand CDs would not have bought fifty thousand CDs even if they had the money.
Tele also makes a good point -- many people download CDs who would never think of even so much as minor shoplifting.
Downloading CDs is more like someone borrowing a book from a friend, and then not buying it because they already know how it ends.
I'm not saying it's right to download music and keep it, but it can't be called theft in the way that stealing jewelry from a store is theft. That is why different countries have different laws.
-
To say that digital information "spreads itself like a virus" sounds like the music just lands on your computer and you have no idea how it got there. It's not alive.
You took nothing from the barber but his time. You took the same from the person who bothered to record themself for your enjoyment. The only difference is that the time he spent on you is easily identifable whereas the time the musician spent must be allocated over all of his customers.
Music is more like software. Software companies go to great trouble to ensure that only those who've purchased the software can use it. The difference? It's worth their time as each instance of the software is more valuable than each instance of a song.
The difference between the music downloader and the petty theft is that you have almost 100% certainty that no one will ever know you did it. The shoplifter is detered by the chance of getting caught.
If I'm correct, you posses a copy of music recorded and edited by Matthew which I assembled. I'd like it back, please. :smirk: I don't appreciate you passing out "samples". :smile:
-
The difference between the music downloader and the petty theft is that you have almost 100% certainty that no one will ever know you did it. The shoplifter is detered by the chance of getting caught.
That's not the difference at all. Even if there was a 100% chance of being "caught" downloading and a 0% chance of being caught shoplifting they would be entirely different acts. And many people would do the former and not the latter, because the latter is not theft, not necessarily sinful in any way.
It is kind of surprising you accept legal fictions like the idea that a copyrighted item is someone's possession, but don't accept laws against hosting underage drinking.
Apparently you can't understand that theft requires that one take someone else's possessions. No one is taking anyone's possessions in downloading.
-
http://bluepanjeet.net/2012/01/24/12288/downloading-uploading-copyrighted-files-mortal-sin/
Mortal Sin?
So this comes to mind the question, is downloading movies and mp3s a sin? The Catholic Church does not particularly address the specific moral accountability in downloading files from the internet. Even if you search the whole Google-verse about the Vatican’s stance on downloading files, there are none. And because of this there is a moral question whether this act constitute sin. But just because the Magisterium is silent on a very “specific” area of morality doesn’t mean it is amoral or void of any conscientious accountability on our part as catholic netizens.
Is it Intrinsically Evil?
Downloading or uploading files is not intrinsically evil in itself. Downloading or uploading is a technological or digital act wherein information is stored on a specific storage for various reasons. An act becomes evil when some elements of malice is included in it. Like if downloading and uploading is accompanied by intentions or motives, therefore morality comes into play. For example, if your intention of downloading or uploading is in itself morally questionable, then the act speaks for itself.
Another thing to consider in order to determine whether downloading or uploading files is morally questionable is the manner by which the act is done. Simply put it, the manner by which a person download or upload a file.
For example, Let’s say that I wanted to learn how to how to create flash graphics but I don’t have any means to buy an expensive software, so what I will do is search some website which offer some free software. From the word free, it means one has no financial obligation in acquiring the software. So I found a website, I downloaded the software and voila, I have the software installed on my computer.
The software is free right? So is it immoral downloading it? probably not. But by the manner of acquiring it, like downloading it from a website which is not allowed by the manufacture to distribute it, gives the impression that they are distributing works which are not their own. So therefore, although my intention is pure, i.e., to learn how to create flash movies, and the object of my act is not malicious, i.e. the flash software, yet the manner by which I acquired it gives away my moral accountability.
So in simple and clear explanation, determining the moral implications of the act of downloading and uploading files on the internet depends on the intention or motive, the object and the manner by which the act is done.
Stealing
So is it really stealing? It depends. When the files you download are not meant for public use, then you are indirectly stealing. When you illegally access information and files that should have been obligated financially, they you are probably stealing. When you upload and distribute files which are not your own and have no permission from the owner, then you are liable for stealing.
The morality of stealing is broad and does not only represent the act itself but also other indirect culpability which we are not aware of, such as buying stolen goods, promoting stolen materials, patronizing stolen products, infringing other’s ideas, and other similar offenses most commonly known as piracy.
When we engage ourselves in piracy, we are also guilty of stealing. The basic premise is, if its not ours and we have no permission from the rightful owner, then we are stealing. Plain and simple.
Fair Use Doctrine
If your purpose, object, and manner of acquiring these files is not malicious, detrimental and damaging to the owner of the work, then you are “probably” not committing any sin.
For example:
In the Vatican website, every message of the Pope has a copyright notice at the end of every message saying “Copyright Libreria Editrice Vaticana”. Now I wanted to copy the entire message of a certain encyclical of a Pope and post it on my website, for the purpose of accessibility and alternative source of the message if in case the original source went offline which really happens in real life. So by copying it on my website did I commit a Mortal sin? Did I failed to apply the fair use doctrine? It depends.
remember that the Pope’s message or any other papal docuмents intended for the faithful is a public docuмent, which means it is actually written for the purpose of being read, therefore the nature of object downloaded is for public consumption. It was meant for the public’s eye. Hence, copying and posting the message will even benefit the Church since you are helping the church spread the message to the faithful.
The Fair use doctrine states that it permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship.
The Catch is this…
Most of the time, the line is blurred and the areas are gray but it doesnt mean we cannot determine the act if it is a sin or not. Not all legal are moral and not all moral are legal.
Always remember, that whenever we download an MP3 file and then we indiscriminately upload it so that others can download it, we are hurting the people who wrote the song. Composers and songwriters does not earn much compared to artists who sing the song. The composers and brains behind the song are also people who needs money to live. The irony is, no composer or songwriter is as rich as the singer. We are actually committing a social sin in depriving others of the fruits of their labor. Read the Social Encyclicals of the catholic Church (Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno, Pacem in Terris, Mater et Magistra etc..). So think twice before downloading any song, movie, games or software for that matter.
This is actually the first Catholic blog I've found that addresses these issues. Like the blogger, I'm guilty of having watched 100's of videos on the internet and posted entire articles on forums and never gave it a second thought. Lately I've begun to question of morality of my actions.
If you've noticed youtube has started to include ads with a lot of the videos that contain copyrighted material and a lot of the music videos have a link posted so that you can go to Amazon and buy the music. I don't believe that it would even be a sin to watch these, especially the music videos that are posted by the record companies themselves. These videos actually generate business. The same it true for News outlets that upload videos or websites such as audiosancto.org that provide mp3 podcasts that rely on donations.
Some person over on CAF made the comment that if anyone illegally uploads videos on youtube, the owner of the material has the right to have it pulled and that if they don't exercise this right and the video has been posted for ages and has received tons of views, then it is probably perfectly legit to watch it. I don't really agree with this. What is the copyright holder has no idea that the video is on youtube? To paraphrase St. Augustine, just because everybody's doing it doesn't make it right.
-
I have to leave for an appointment in a second, but I wanted to get the site's opinion on this. Is downloading CDs off the Internet really theft? I mean, clear-cut theft?
It is not theft.
What is being violated is not the loss of property, but the perceived loss of revenue from failure to pay a license fee for use of one's ideas.
Under the same general laws involved here, we are likewise supposed to pay for the right to sing "Happy Birthday", as someone "owns" that song. Imagine the lost revenue from the widespread piracy of their intellectual property!
My question is, at what point does restitution have to be made? If you had once had downloaded CDs and enjoyed them, but you have changed your tastes and no longer use them, do you have to make reparation for having used them in the past? What if you only listened to it once and were on the fence about whether you liked it or not? How much would you have to listen to a downloaded CD before it became actual theft -- because I think everyone will agree it can't be theft to download a CD and sample some of the tracks to see if you want to eventually buy it.
Restitution does not have to be made unless you are court ordered to do so. Justice does not demand it.
I wrote this blog post about this general topic recently: Is breaking the law a sin? (http://blog.nonpeccabis.com/2013/04/is-breaking-law-sin.html)
Maybe its advice (quoted from authority) would be good for future acts.
-
The problem with intellectual "property" is that it is not transferred in physical form, and its real market value, once it is mass produced, diminishes to nearly zero. Did Mozart commit a mortal sin when he memorized Allegri's Miserere? Were the members of the audience committing a mortal sin when they hummed the melody on their way home from the Maundy Thursday vespers? Or did Mozart sin when he wrote the music down from memory? And would it have been wrong if he used a machine to do the task for him?
It would have been a sin if Mozart went into the sheet music printing business, making money from Allegri's Miserere in competition with Allegri in order to deprive Allegri of his hard earned living. It would have been a worse sin still if Mozart claimed to have written the music himself.
However since Allegri did not publish the sheet music, those who could not travel or had no money had no chance of hearing it and were never really a part of the market. If they heard performances of the piece in far off places then Allegri could not have felt any tangible property loss. Even if Allegri charged money to have his pieces performed under his direction, he would arguably have not lost anything if the whole of Christendom imitated him.
The principle of the now hopelessly outdated copyright laws was to allow the artists a chance to make a living from their creativity, but recognizing that the artwork itself (being mass produced) lost its value after a time and became a part of the public domain. This process, once gradual, is now very fast. The profits made from CD (or MP3) sales peak quickly and then rapidly wane, but not really due to piracy, but because the speed and efficiency of distribution are so great. Research shows that the percentage of discretionary income that the public spends on entertainment has not diminished over time, therefore the mass media entertainment industry is not suffering tangible losses but are simply crying poor.
I personally try to pay for music that I actually want to have in my collection. (usually religious music or great or rare classical performances) If I am sampling things, I download them and if they are really good, I go ahead and buy physical media so I can put it on my shelf, otherwise it all gets deleted after a while when I clean up.
-
If you have something to which you believe you have no right, the best thing to do is simply delete it and purchase it from another source. Now you have the right to the item and you have fulfilled any issue of restitution.
In today's environment, the legal rights to certain pieces of music could belong to people who have no real connection to the original music other that the fact that they have purchased the rights. In fact, I would venture to say that this is true of most electronic media. In any event, once you have deleted the item you believe was improperly copied, it is gone and the idea of restitution is no longer an issue. Or, if you purchase the item, you have fulfilled any obligation.
-
If you have something to which you believe you have no right, the best thing to do is simply delete it and purchase it from another source. Now you have the right to the item and you have fulfilled any issue of restitution.
In today's environment, the legal rights to certain pieces of music could belong to people who have no real connection to the original music other that the fact that they have purchased the rights. In fact, I would venture to say that this is true of most electronic media. In any event, once you have deleted the item you believe was improperly copied, it is gone and the idea of restitution is no longer an issue. Or, if you purchase the item, you have fulfilled any obligation.
From a pragmatic point of view I agree, render to Caesar what is Caesar's, in a way. But I don't subscribe to the idea that all copying of music is necessarily theft.
-
If you have something to which you believe you have no right, the best thing to do is simply delete it and purchase it from another source. Now you have the right to the item and you have fulfilled any issue of restitution.
In today's environment, the legal rights to certain pieces of music could belong to people who have no real connection to the original music other that the fact that they have purchased the rights. In fact, I would venture to say that this is true of most electronic media. In any event, once you have deleted the item you believe was improperly copied, it is gone and the idea of restitution is no longer an issue. Or, if you purchase the item, you have fulfilled any obligation.
From a pragmatic point of view I agree, render to Caesar what is Caesar's, in a way. But I don't subscribe to the idea that all copying of music is necessarily theft.
I'm not convinced that it necessarily is theft either. I wouldn't know where I could get music from the internet that isn't clearly free to use anyway. That's why I noted that if someone "believes" he has no right to have the music, this is what he should do. I download sermons and conferences and podcasts all the time from websites that specifically allow me to do so. My conscience is clear on the matter.
-
I seem to remember having said somewhere on the site that downloading music is not theft, and I wanted to come back and give a more nuanced view, so as not to lead anyone astray. But actually my original post was fairly nuanced.
I don't want to read through all my junk, but if I did say that it is not theft, I am not so sure at this point. Don't follow my advice -- ask a priest.
Is downloading a CD and listening to it once theft? I don't know. If you burn a CD and intend to keep it and you are positive you are never going to buy the thing, that seems more clearly like theft to me. But even then, you often can't prove the artist has lost income due to your actions; because just the fact that you were intending to keep the burned CD, does not mean that you would have bought it if that were the only way to get it. Maybe you just downloaded it because it was easy and available but you are not interested enough to buy it.
Now, if you KNOW you want that CD in your collection, and you keep the burned copy and don't ever buy it, because you don't want to pay for it, that would probably be theft. You would not know if it were venial or mortal since you usually don't know the finances of the artist; therefore it probably would rarely be mortal. But it seems like theft to me.
Maizar rhetorically asks if it's theft if you sing Happy Birthday or whistle a Mozart tune on the way back from the opera. Well, there is no chance of anyone losing money there, because no one is going to pay to hear you whistling Mozart, but they will pay to see the opera conducted by a great maestro. But then he goes on to say that he buys something that he really wants. I think the demands of the conscience are clear there.
-
Okay, I see later that I did say it wasn't theft but may be "wrong" in some other way. I tend towards the opposite view now, and I try to rigorously obey copyright laws; maybe too much so, but that is where I'm at at the moment.
-
Raoul,
You're back! :smile:
-
Raoul,
You're back! :smile:
......or........is he??
You can tell how much someone has been absent by their likers/critics
stats (sort of)........ Raul76 has only 3 critics! And 12 likers! After all
those posts? It must mean he hasn't posted much since the system
was reset again.
-
.
Now, I know this thread isn't about Roul76, but I expect he may agree,
that he has sort of been given the spotlight here for a minute or two.
I recall reading his signature area previously an had thought it was
self-centered to put all that in there. But now, I see I was wrong.
Maybe I've had a kind of transformation, too?
It's looking like this right now (he can change it any time):
.........................
A general rule is that all my posts before 2011 are dangerous to read. At the time I was nothing short of a frothing Pharisee. Please ignore my old posts against NFP and implicit faith, both of which are true teachings, as well as Fatima and Lucy's later revelations, which I now see are of continuing paramount importance in the history of the Church.
I also apologize for my lack of prudence when speaking about clergy in the past, I didn't know where the line was and often judged intentions instead of actions and words. My deepest apologies to Pius XII especially, who I judged in the harshest light and accused of being a communist infiltrator, and to Innocent XI and Pius XI, for any irrational suspicion or condemnation of their intentions. I also believe I spread a rumor about Innocent XI that I had read in a book, probably non-Catholic, which I would retract if I could.
I also apologize with profoundest regret to Abp. Lefebvre and Bp. Fellay, the nuns who left CMRI, for assuming malign intentions about them and calling them "witches" in my exaggerated style at the time; Father Cekada and the SSPX priest Fr. Boulet for suggesting or saying they were deliberately intellectually dishonest, Bp. Vezelis for spreading a rumor about him that is not verified; I also apologize to Fr. Martin Stepanich, Mgr. Fenton, Father Brian hαɾɾιson, Cardinal Newman, De Lugo, Suarez, Erasmus, and anyone else I have forgotten, for saying or suggesting they were heretics and/or infiltrators due to my former errors. I was also very harsh on Dietrich von Hildebrand and Cardinal Gibbons. During all this time, I was under the influence of major scruples, probably without even knowing what that meant, as well as general paranoia, seeing evil everywhere, and had a distorted, extreme view of the Crisis.
I'd like to ask Raoul, if he wouldn't mind providing any information
today about why he had developed some of these negative attitudes
in the past, but SPECIFICALLY, that the "later revelations" of Sr. Lucia
of Fatima had been somehow less credible.
The reason I ask this is I've run into very opinionated people who also
say that, and that the Church only approved the 1917 visions, but did
not approve the later ones, etc. And they won't hear anything about
the story to affect their opinion. So, since Raoul has now admitted to
have been wrong on that, I'd like to know what made him think that
way in the first place (against her later 'revelations') and what made
him realize that he had been off track??