Copying Music: Which Commandment does it violate?

[Joe_5859]

The purpose of this thread is not to argue whether downloading music is a sin, but rather, if it is a sin, What sin is it?

Is the sin in stealing (7th Commandment), or is the sin in failing to recognize and obey legitimate authority (4th Commandment)? Or is it something else?

The Catholic Answers apologists seem to think it is a violation of the 4th, not the 7th commandment:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=2471

At first, I assumed it was a violation of the 7th Commandment. The entertainment industry seems to be engaged in a mass advertising campaign to convince us that it is stealing (and we all know stealing is wrong).

But the more I think about that, the more I doubt it. I’ve read other posts in other threads where people compare it to stealing the CD out of the store, or asking for a paper cup for water at a fast food place only to fill it up with soda instead.

Under scrutiny, I don’t think these comparisons hold up. When you copy music, the original remains intact, and the original owner retains possession. Stealing a physical CD from a store is much different. The store may have already paid for the CD. There are manufacturing costs involved. The CD is physically tangible. The analogy seems to work well because the end result is the same: I now have music in my possession that I did not pay for. But that isn’t enough to say the acts are exactly the same.

I hope everyone knows that I’m certainly not advocating music piracy. (See, even the name we give it presupposes that it is stealing! ). I’m just trying to bring clarity to this issue. I’m not saying I’m 100% correct, and I’m willing to have my mind changed. I just think the subject warrants more than a knee-jerk response of “it’s obviously stealing,” especially since it seems to be such a prevalent issue that we all encounter at some point or another (and likely will continue to encounter).

 

[brycelaliberte]

At first, I assumed it was a violation of the 7th Commandment. The entertainment industry seems to be engaged in a mass advertising campaign to convince us that it is stealing (and we all know stealing is wrong).

I hope everyone knows that I’m certainly not advocating music piracy. (See, even the name we give it presupposes that it is stealing! ).

It was the entertainment industry that gave it the name piracy, though that actually applies to the illegal recording, reproducing, and selling of copyrighted material, but that is specifically the case in which the copyrighted material is being sold (I think, I’d have to check the specific laws). Just wanted to say.

I think it more is stealing, because if the person who makes the music says that his/her talent is worth money, and we take it without compensation for our use, that would be stealing.
I would say this because there are artists out there who WANT their music to be passed around as much as possible, whether or not they’re being paid for it or not. It wouldn’t be stealing in this case, because the artist says it isn’t.

Just my take.

 

[goofyjim]

The laws permit us to make backup copies as long as we are not making money from them. So technically it is not stealing. Why does this issue keep coming up? If I want 2 personal copies of something must I buy 2 original copies of the CD? The courts decided back in 1984 that you could tape a program for personal use but not for public use. That set the precedent for allowing private personal backup copies.

 

[system]

Why does this issue keep coming up?

The Holy Spirit keeps nagging peoples’ consciences!

Yes, private backup copies are legal (and RARE!)

The Holy Spirit isn’t nagging anyone about personal backups for private use.

Oh - I forgot!

Scratch that! I vote it is stealing. not 4th commandment is the commandment broken.

 

[Joe_5859]

I think it more is stealing, because if the person who makes the music says that his/her talent is worth money, and we take it without compensation for our use, that would be stealing.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

If we draw this out, though, many musicians also have websites or myspace pages where you can listen to their music, you just can’t download the music. So what would the distinction be? In either case, I can listen to the music as many times as I want without paying for it. Is the only distinction the artist’s intent?

I ask this not to be combative, but just to further the discussion.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

The laws permit us to make backup copies as long as we are not making money from them. So technically it is not stealing. Why does this issue keep coming up? If I want 2 personal copies of something must I buy 2 original copies of the CD? The courts decided back in 1984 that you could tape a program for personal use but not for public use. That set the precedent for allowing private personal backup copies.

It keeps coming up because of the built in copyright restrictions on most media now. The DMCA will be revoked if it is ever challenged to the 1984 ruling. Until that happens, this debate will continue in the public forum with the RIAA and others’ statements about not copying material in any way.

Their ideal business model is a pay for each play, but each time that has been attempted it falls flat on its face. It is too ingrained in our persona to pay once and have that copy for life.

 

[als10062008]

I’m hung up on a twist on this. It’s different than stealing from a record store as usually one person buys a CD, rips it, then willingly shares it out. So the downloader would be receiving it from someone who wants to share it.

Perhaps the person who ripped it “stole” it under the 7th commandment and the person who downloads it from the ripper is breaking the 4th commandment.

 

[Joe_5859]

The laws permit us to make backup copies as long as we are not making money from them. So technically it is not stealing. Why does this issue keep coming up? If I want 2 personal copies of something must I buy 2 original copies of the CD? The courts decided back in 1984 that you could tape a program for personal use but not for public use. That set the precedent for allowing private personal backup copies.

I realize the issue comes up a lot, but I was hoping this thread could have a slightly different focus. I would like to discuss why it’s wrong, not whether it’s wrong. The presupposition is that it is wrong.

To further clarify, I guess I’m really asking about illegal copies, not legal backup copies (which would be perfectly moral).

 

[goofyjim]

It keeps coming up because of the built in copyright restrictions on most media now. The DMCA will be revoked if it is ever challenged to the 1984 ruling. Until that happens, this debate will continue in the public forum with the RIAA and others’ statements about not copying material in any way.

Their ideal business model is a pay for each play, but each time that has been attempted it falls flat on its face. It is too ingrained in our persona to pay once and have that copy for life.

So let’s say I have an ipod. I’m not permitted to put the CD on my computer first to transfer it to my ipod? I have three copies but I am certainly not making any money off them and not sharing thempublicly with anyone. So where am I stealing anything? The same could apply to burning a CD copy.

 

[Joe_5859]

Why does this issue keep coming up?

The Holy Spirit keeps nagging peoples’ consciences!

I hope you don’t mean me!

I’m not trying to discuss whether or not it’s right, but why it is wrong.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

So let’s say I have an ipod. I’m not permitted to put the CD on my computer first to transfer it to my ipod? I have three copies but I am certainly not making any money off them and not sharing thempublicly with anyone. So where am I stealing anything? The same could apply to burning a CD copy.

As much as the RIAA and others complain, they know the ruling from 1984 will stand if they challenge everyone’s iPod collection. They make money through Apple through iTunes so that revenue stream is also at risk if they challenge CD copying to other devices if you own the CD.

None of us is stealing anything right now by copying a CD to a digital music device if we own it. I actually have my entire good size CD collection on an iPod for portability and convience but I keep the CDs for backup and legal protection.

It is a matter of having up to date business models, and we are still in an format transition from CDs to digital formats which is still very fluid with technology changes.

 

[brycelaliberte]

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

If we draw this out, though, many musicians also have websites or myspace pages where you can listen to their music, you just can’t download the music. So what would the distinction be? In either case, I can listen to the music as many times as I want without paying for it. Is the only distinction the artist’s intent?

I ask this not to be combative, but just to further the discussion.

Hmmm… That is a poser.

I would still go back onto to saying that the musician defines the ‘terms’ of when their music is stolen, and that if they say it is okay to be listened to, then fine, as long as we don’t ‘own’ it, by their terms.
Musician’s music and talent, musician’s distinction.

 

[system]

I hope you don’t mean me!

I’m not trying to discuss whether or not it’s right, but why it is wrong.

No - not taking shots at anyone.

I’m guilty of stealing music both by downloads of recordings, and the illegal copying of sheet music. I don’t do either anymore.

I’m a musician and have been on a few small-time CD’s. But my main work is in the sheet music field. On those recordings, I did them for a small fee or in one case, for free. If the CD made a fortune, I had no agreement to make any more so… I got what we agreed on. If it was MY CD, I sure would want to know if it was being duplicated or given away. Most small artists make these for extra cash. Play a gig at a bar, sell a bunch of CD’s $15 - $20 each. Remember, the musician already paid for them - probably a couple grand. He’ll only make it back by selling a bunch of them.

In the sheet music world, many publishers are giving away recordings to teachers and church directors with the goal of selling sheet music. That’s a completely different reason for making a CD than a the reasons a local artist or a “record company” would make a CD.

These days I have music published in the education sheet music world. If a teacher were to illegally photocopy that music, me and my family would literally be robbed of some income. One teacher does it, I lose a couple gallons o milk for the kids. 25 teachers do, I lose a car payment, a hundred teachers do it - no vacation this year. It’s real and it’s personal. I think if it get put into terms like that, SOME may see the error of their ways. Some will never stop.

 

[Holly3278]

I would say that copying music illegally would violate the 7th commandment.

 

[CatholicCid]

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

If we draw this out, though, many musicians also have websites or myspace pages where you can listen to their music, you just can’t download the music. So what would the distinction be? In either case, I can listen to the music as many times as I want without paying for it. Is the only distinction the artist’s intent?

I ask this not to be combative, but just to further the discussion.

By going to their website, you are increasing their total amount of hits and possibly providing profits through their advertisements. As for music on MySpage pages, I admit I’m not really sure how they do that, but I would assume the artist is compensated somehow through MySpace? If they are, then MySpace is recieving the traffic and possible advertisment incentives.

So, in this one instance, while you are listening to their music for free, you are still contributing to them through visiting their website or whichever website it might be legally listened to from.
If you download the music, you bypass the websites.

Just my :twocents:

 

[Caesar517]

I would say the violating copyright laws by piracy (illegal downloads) is stealing, but other copyright violations may fall under the 4th commandment.

 

[Joe_5859]

By going to their website, you are increasing their total amount of hits and possibly providing profits through their advertisements. As for music on MySpage pages, I admit I’m not really sure how they do that, but I would assume the artist is compensated somehow through MySpace? If they are, then MySpace is recieving the traffic and possible advertisment incentives.

So, in this one instance, while you are listening to their music for free, you are still contributing to them through visiting their website or whichever website it might be legally listened to from.
If you download the music, you bypass the websites.

Just my :twocents:

That’s a good point. Plus, even if they aren’t getting any money, the artist’s intent does make a large difference. If they “own” the song, they may choose to make it freely available, or not. I suppose it’s comparable to the difference between the artist handing me a copy of their CD for promotional purposes and me just taking it.

I’ve thought about this a bit more and I’ll just throw it out there, even though it may not be a fully-developed thought. Let’s say, then, that illegally downloading music is really stealing as opposed to neglecting legitimate authority. Is it only considered stealing because of the the copyright laws? In other words, we could say that the act of downloading a song is not intrinisically an act of theft, but because of the laws in place, it becomes an act of theft. Perhaps this is the distinction that I have been looking for?

Come to think of it, perhaps the best answer is actually both. Illegally downloading music violates both the 7th and the 4th commandments.

Thoughts, anyone?

 

[system]

I’ve thought about this a bit more and I’ll just throw it out there, even though it may not be a fully-developed thought. Let’s say, then, that illegally downloading music is really stealing as opposed to neglecting legitimate authority. Is it only considered stealing because of the the copyright laws? In other words, we could say that the act of downloading a song is not intrinisically an act of theft, but because of the laws in place, it becomes an act of theft. Perhaps this is the distinction that I have been looking for?

Thoughts, anyone?

You’re right Joe - that may not be a fully developed thought.

It sounds like you’re saying that me leaving the circuit City with a CD stuffed down my pants is only wrong because there are electronic theft-protection gates at the exit doors!

 

[Joe_5859]

You’re right Joe - that may not be a fully developed thought.

No, really, you can just come out and say it! Don’t hold back. There’s no need to be subtle.

It sounds like you’re saying that me leaving the circuit City with a CD stuffed down my pants is only wrong because there are electronic theft-protection gates at the exit doors!

That’s certainly not what I’m trying to say. Perhaps I am working too hard to draw distinctions where none exist? I don’t know, though. I still think there is a difference between stealing an object and making a copy of the object while leaving the original intact and with its lawful owner (not that they aren’t both wrong, of course). Perhaps that difference is not meaningful or necessary?

As you can tell, I’m far from having this all thought out, so I appreciate you helping me along.

 

[system]

No, really, you can just come out and say it! Don’t hold back. There’s no need to be subtle.

That’s certainly not what I’m trying to say. Perhaps I am working too hard to draw distinctions where none exist? I don’t know, though. I still think there is a difference between stealing an object and making a copy of the object while leaving the original intact and with its lawful owner (not that they aren’t both wrong, of course). Perhaps that difference is not meaningful or necessary?

As you can tell, I’m far from having this all thought out, so I appreciate you helping me along.

Well, the recording world is a big mess, but the paper sheetmusic world does have one very simple guideline: if the action you are taking is to avoid or circumvent paying for the music, you are wrong. So, photocopying music to avoid buying it is illegal. BUT, photocopying music because your church choir just gained 10 members and it’s one week until Christmas, can be legal if you:
a) order the music you have copied.
b) destroy your copies when the real copies arrive.

What is a sort of gray area for me is when I take things (CD’s and DVD’s, not just books) out of my local library. I have a strong desire to make personal copies for myself, and yet - I haven’t paid for the item…and yet again, I pay taxes that fund the library, right? And if keep taking it out of the library, I’m keeping iot from others, right? This is how I rationalize myself into small-time sin! I once ripped a library CD onto my laptop and then told my two kids who are old enough to understand, "now, because I just did that, that artist won’t get paid for the copy I now have on my laptop. So dad was wrong to do it. Funnily enough, they both said, “yeah - you are!”