B
Beryllos
Guest
With that statement, one could rationalize just about any sin.
- Status
A
Alex_Heartnet
Guest
Why oh why would I ever want to buy from Apple. Either I get their product from elsewhere or I don’t get it at all.
I won’t ever torrent anything ‘belonging’ to iTunes either. An argument could be constructed for how this could benefit Apple, so I need to make sure to deny them of that as well. If it’s not ethical to buy, then it’s not ethical to download, and I cannot get it any way then I just won’t get it at all.
looks at huge library of games purchased
I do indeed give money to developers I like, in some cases far exceeding the value of their product. Indeed, what better way is there to respect the artist then sending him money? What I don’t agree with is the notion that I must pay money upfront for every single thing within a post-scarcity environment.
Additionally, by making educated choices I am respecting the rights of others by not supporting exploitative business practices.
Sometimes my decisions are mistaken. I’m starting to question my own torrenting again (which I haven’t been doing nearly as much of this year), but this is not out of obedience to a broken copyright system. Indeed a few years ago I would of said “but torrenting is baaaad!” but my beliefs had to be re-evaluated when faced with a huge lie. This is a process that takes time, and errors are made along the way.
I’m still constantly changing my beliefs based on new information. I suppose my beliefs could get shattered a second time, but said beliefs has already been challenged so so many times and made stronger for it.
Very true, perhaps I should of worded it differently.
“The world is a big place, it’s impossible to know everything that happens in it, and contradictions seem to be everywhere. None of these would be a problem if the Devil was not at work deceiving people and trying to undo God’s creation.”
E
edwest2
Guest
I’ll have to disagree. We send out takedown notices all the time. I’ve learned a lot of copyright law. People doing what people do is what matters.I just explained in my previous post why this is an overly simplistic notion
Very well, I provide some real-life examples.
There’s a major online distribution service known as “Steam”. The company owner has claimed that his business has been highly successful in piracy-prone Russia, and the key to his success was to simply provide a better service then the supposed ‘thieves’.
The guy who made Hotline Miami claims that it’s more important for him that people enjoy his game then it is for people to buy from him. If it weren’t for torrenting, his game would of remained obscure and would of never gotten the needed exposure to become so successful.
The world is never that simple.
It’s very black and white.
Peace,
Ed
A
Alex_Heartnet
Guest
…so you are a professional? Guess neither of us are budging an inch on the matter. Further debate is useless.
Dare I ask exactly what you do for a living so I can avoid wasting time, money and bandwidth on it?
B
Beryllos
Guest
Yeah, maybe there is no point in arguing about the law, so here is a different point of view for your consideration:
I am currently struggling with the morality of CD copying because over the years I did gather some mp3 music files by copying (“ripping”) CDs from the public library. We’re talking about the equivalent of 100 CDs or so, which is small in comparison to other CDs which I have bought fair and square, either new at retail outlets, or more often from used CD shops, ebay, and garage sales.
As an aside, I tended to buy new/retail from about 1985 to 2000. Roughly around 2000, I switched almost entirely to used CDs, which as you mentioned does not directly profit the artist or record company, but as I mentioned is legal nonetheless. (There may be a moral issue for the seller if he copied the CD prior to selling it to me, and a moral issue for me if I were aware of him copying it in order to sell the original CD to me.)
Anyway, I am coming to the conclusion that it is morally unacceptable for me to possess and listen to the music I’ve copied from library CDs. It’s not so much that it breaks the law or hurts someone, though those are significant factors to me. The main issue is attachment to worldly goods. I think it is spiritually unhealthy, or a sign of spiritual weakness, to cling to music files and discs which have been obtained in this way. Do I own the music files, or do they own me?
I have started by weeding out the files that I least enjoy or have grown tired of. That’s the easy part. However, there are many music files that I enjoy quite a lot, and it is hard to let them go. I am not sure it should be hard. If I just deleted the lot, would I really miss them? I could always borrow them again from the library, enjoy them, and return them. And if the library no longer has a favorite CD, so what? Life goes on, and there is other music. I could even make a short list and legally purchase all the pieces I dearly love; a few hundred bucks in exchange for a clean conscience, seems like a good deal.
Well, I haven’t done it yet, haven’t quite pressed the delete key…
… but it could happen soon…
… Maybe I’ll give you an update on the next thread.
I am currently struggling with the morality of CD copying because over the years I did gather some mp3 music files by copying (“ripping”) CDs from the public library. We’re talking about the equivalent of 100 CDs or so, which is small in comparison to other CDs which I have bought fair and square, either new at retail outlets, or more often from used CD shops, ebay, and garage sales.
As an aside, I tended to buy new/retail from about 1985 to 2000. Roughly around 2000, I switched almost entirely to used CDs, which as you mentioned does not directly profit the artist or record company, but as I mentioned is legal nonetheless. (There may be a moral issue for the seller if he copied the CD prior to selling it to me, and a moral issue for me if I were aware of him copying it in order to sell the original CD to me.)
Anyway, I am coming to the conclusion that it is morally unacceptable for me to possess and listen to the music I’ve copied from library CDs. It’s not so much that it breaks the law or hurts someone, though those are significant factors to me. The main issue is attachment to worldly goods. I think it is spiritually unhealthy, or a sign of spiritual weakness, to cling to music files and discs which have been obtained in this way. Do I own the music files, or do they own me?
I have started by weeding out the files that I least enjoy or have grown tired of. That’s the easy part. However, there are many music files that I enjoy quite a lot, and it is hard to let them go. I am not sure it should be hard. If I just deleted the lot, would I really miss them? I could always borrow them again from the library, enjoy them, and return them. And if the library no longer has a favorite CD, so what? Life goes on, and there is other music. I could even make a short list and legally purchase all the pieces I dearly love; a few hundred bucks in exchange for a clean conscience, seems like a good deal.
Well, I haven’t done it yet, haven’t quite pressed the delete key…
… but it could happen soon…
… Maybe I’ll give you an update on the next thread.
A
Alex_Heartnet
Guest
Ah yes, public libraries, such notorious file sharing locations. Why, ANYone could go to their local library and read at their leisure without paying royalties!
It’s almost as if public benefit is more important then artist benefit!
You have then, might as well use them? After all, it didn’t cost the library anything for you to make a copy.
This is where the public enters the equation. Public benefit outweighs individual benefit?
Bartering is an ancient practice that predates the concepts of money, copyright, and supporting artists. It has withstood the test of time and has a niche role even in today’s medium-of-exchange based economy.
No one should be allowed to profit off of other people’s work? Ergh, not sure on this one food for thought
Also, it’s an ethics question and not a moral one. This is heavily debatable and can vary between cultures. It’s not the same as robbing an artist on the street at gunpoint.
I had the opposite problem as a kid. The pain of having to give up something you cherish. I have since learned that generosity should not come at heavy personal expense.
Want a game from my collection? Sure, don’t really care about 95% of it. The 5% that I do care about I guard jealously because of my experiences as a kid. Others can have it when I am done using it myself.
Glad I have never had this problem. Letting go is easy for me. However, it will be under voluntary or forced circumstances and not out of misguided generosity!
Keep it around anyway, unless you need the hard drive space. Just in case of internet outage or media boycott or nostalgia or something, never know when you might change your mind. You might never use it, your hard drive might wear out (those things have a limited lifespan!), but it will still be there.
Follow your own moral compass, even though it might point in a different direction from mine.
But try to make sure the money actually reaches the artists if at all possible. After all, isn’t that your reason for buying legally? Good intentions alone aren’t enough to make a difference in this world.
gflksdgjlksntglfksk
I have repeatedly asked for your reasoning on this case and have demonstrated that this is a grey area. So far your reasoning seems to be ‘it’s baaaddd because it just is’
Might I ask who you work for? You said “we”, which implies that you do it as part of a group. From this I assume that you work for a large corporation.
You seem like a decent guy, so surely you are working for a productive enterprise and not a copyright troll?
Not enough, apparently. The sheer amount of copywrong horror stories I keep hearing about is one of the main reasons why I have zero respect for copyright.
Fanfiction is good for your company’s bottom line, by the way. I would not of heard of Battlestar Galactica if it weren’t for the fangames, and now I’m spending money on the official game. (and if the fanfic is better then the official product then that’s a problem on your end)
Good intentions alone are not enough to make a difference in this world.
P
polytropos
Guest
Burning a CD for a friend is a sin. Loaning a CD (or book, say) to a friend is not.
What about loaning a CD to a friend with the knowledge that your friend will rip/burn the CD himself? (Suppose you don’t intend for your friend to do this; it’s not an attempt to get around the sin yourself. But you know your friend has done this in the past, or with other friends, and that he will likely act to build up his music collection cheaply.) That would be a sin as well (providing your friend with an occasion for sin–and while the act of loaning is morally indifferent, it would violate the proportionality criterion of PDE, since the unintended evil consequence is graver than the intended good), so one would have to take reasonable steps to advise the friend not to do anything illegal.
What about loaning a CD to a friend with the knowledge that your friend will rip/burn the CD himself? (Suppose you don’t intend for your friend to do this; it’s not an attempt to get around the sin yourself. But you know your friend has done this in the past, or with other friends, and that he will likely act to build up his music collection cheaply.) That would be a sin as well (providing your friend with an occasion for sin–and while the act of loaning is morally indifferent, it would violate the proportionality criterion of PDE, since the unintended evil consequence is graver than the intended good), so one would have to take reasonable steps to advise the friend not to do anything illegal.
B
Beryllos
Guest
No, for me it is not about money. It is about rights. It is about obeying just laws so that we may live in a cooperative and lawful society.
I think you pay too much attention to royalties and payments. While copyright law has some bearing upon profits, it is not primarily about profit. It is about the copyright owner’s right to satisfy the demand for his product. How this plays out in the market depends on the level of demand:
- High demand: If lots of people want to listen to the music and possess it, many will buy new CDs or files. As their demand is satisfied by sales of legal copies, the owner will profit.
. - Intermediate demand: Perhaps someone has bought a CD but no longer wishes to possess it (maybe their musical tastes changed, or maybe the music just doesn’t have a lasting appeal). Someone else wants to possess it but is unwilling or unable to pay full price. The original purchaser can sell or give away the CD to the one who wants it. In this scenario, a portion of the market demand is satisfied by the resale of used CDs. Nevertheless, the copyright owner made or authorized those copies. In this scenario he earns modest profits according to the modest demand for new CDs.
. - Demand for listening but not possessing: Some consumers wish to listen but do not care to own or possess the CD or file. For them it is enough to listen on a temporary basis. Their demand can be satisfied by listening to the radio or borrowing the CD from the public library. The copyright owner earns modest profits from library sales.
.
(By the way, my town library also offers a music service called Freegal, whereby library patrons can download mp3 files, free of charge and DRM-free, for personal use. How cool is that! The library pays a fee for this service. Copyright laws apply.)
. - Little or no demand: If nobody wants to listen to the music, there is no demand and the owner will earn no profits. The law does not guarantee profits.
I do not understand how it is that you think you have the right to copy music you did not create and do not own. Owning the CD is not the same as owning the music. You may own the CD but you do not have any legal right to copy and distribute it.
You say the system is broken. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t, but I think it’s funny that you appoint yourself as the judge, and your “solution” seems to be to simply take what you want and thumb your nose at the music companies.
You have a particular aversion to iTunes. I don’t use iTunes, I just have no need of it, but I understand that they took on the traditional distribution model, came up with a system which, though imperfect, makes music available to consumers in a new way. What is wrong with giving consumers another option, even if it is loaded with restrictions? Or is it the profits that you object to? Or the Apple culture?
J
johnmann
Guest
Importing secular property laws not based on the natural law into a moral framework is problematic. Is adverse possession moral? Is eminent domain? Is it immoral for me to profit off my invention simply because, unbeknownst to me, someone else thought of it first? Was recording TV moral before the Betamax case then immoral afterwards?
So copyright violation may not be breaking the commandment against theft but it may still be disobeying a just law. I would argue that much, but not all, of copyright law is unjust. Some might even make the case that the entire notion of copyright is unjust.
Even if it’s a just law, that doesn’t make violation a grave matter. Going 1 MPH over the speed limit is illegal but would anyone consider that gravely immoral? The gravity of the offense matters. Selling some poor soul’s work as your own? That’s bad. Downloading a foreign TV show, unavailable legally in the US? Or even a domestic show that I have legal access to but missed? Not so bad.
So copyright violation may not be breaking the commandment against theft but it may still be disobeying a just law. I would argue that much, but not all, of copyright law is unjust. Some might even make the case that the entire notion of copyright is unjust.
Even if it’s a just law, that doesn’t make violation a grave matter. Going 1 MPH over the speed limit is illegal but would anyone consider that gravely immoral? The gravity of the offense matters. Selling some poor soul’s work as your own? That’s bad. Downloading a foreign TV show, unavailable legally in the US? Or even a domestic show that I have legal access to but missed? Not so bad.
S
suko
Guest
It’s good to keep in mind that these copyright laws, imo, were put into place for a just reason, and when we look at the catechism, specifically on paragraph 2240: it states clearly that Christians “obey the established laws” of their nation, except, as paragraph 2242 puts it:
The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” "We must obey God rather than men" ~ So basically, there are 3 reasons one may disobey a just law. So one should ask themself, is this a just law, and if so, is this a just reason for disobeying this particular just law?
I saw someone mention a speed limit example, but again, u have to ask yourself, what is your reason for disobeying that just law? Your reason is what matters, and it would need to be a just one.
The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” "We must obey God rather than men" ~ So basically, there are 3 reasons one may disobey a just law. So one should ask themself, is this a just law, and if so, is this a just reason for disobeying this particular just law?
I saw someone mention a speed limit example, but again, u have to ask yourself, what is your reason for disobeying that just law? Your reason is what matters, and it would need to be a just one.
A
Alex_Heartnet
Guest
Hah, a few years ago I would of said the exact same thing.
Why yes, I’ve love to have just laws and a cooperative society.
All I see is a horribly broken socioeconomic model, a parasitic ruling class which never contributes anything, a lawless government that cannot be held accountable, and widespread copyright infringement done by the copyright holders themselves.
Correct. Copyright (“Right to copy”) saw its first iteration in 1559 because Pope Paul IV didn’t like how anyone could grab a printing press and quickly spread dissenting information. As the technology was developed further, books become progressively cheaper to make, literacy rates rose, and soon enough copyright law became more prevalent.
I have honestly never heard this argument before, and I’ve seen a lot.
How is it that ‘exclusive rights’ is necessary to satisfy demand? Surely the creator would be seen as the ‘official source’, which alone guarantees a huge competitive advantage.
Our collective cultural heritage is meant to be shared, and not locked away and held for ransom by copyright holders.
I think I’ve already adequately explained how sharing is a net benefit to the author.
My ‘solution’ was not pulled out of thin air. It was shaped by years of reading constructive arguments and reading story after story about copyright abuse.
If I am proven to be wrong, then I change my beliefs accordingly, and each time this happens my narrative becomes stronger and stronger.
That is because Apple has become a horrible company.
But at least they contribute something, unlike the banksters of today.
The umm wut?
I can honestly say I have never heard of this despite growing up and living in a heavily Catholic community.
But hey, I came to this forum because I wanted someone to challenge my worldviews
Information takes time to digest, and this is a lot of new information gimme a while before I can get back to you on the subject
B
Beryllos
Guest
A good point. I am not strict in every detail about copyright law, and so I think it is morally acceptable to record a program for temporary use, like a TV show for later viewing. I see no reason for myself to save a TV show or a DVD movie after viewing it once, so I usually delete the files after viewing. On the other hand, someone close to me is a serious DVD hoarder, who retains copies of thousands of DVDs which he may never watch. Sinful? Perhaps. Inordinate attachment to worldly things? Definitely.
B
Beryllos
Guest
Well, I hope you are a Linux user (like myself) and not pirating Microsoft (like I used to).
Stick around CAF and you’ll hear more from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The passage suko quoted comes up often when people complain about the government, taxes, or this or that law.suko;12234349:
The umm wut?
I can honestly say I have never heard of this despite growing up and living in a heavily Catholic community.
(The above link is to a web-based CCC which I recommend because it has a pretty good search tool and good cross-referencing, in comparison to other CCC web sites I’ve seen.)
E
edwest2
Guest
I am a professional editor for a privately held media company.
I am head of research.
I am an assistant art director and work with artists and writers.
I am an artist and a writer, with published works.
I have been involved in copyright litigation research.
I am in contact with two Hollywood movie production companies and have done contract review.
Peace,
Ed
- Status