Download a software is a sin?

[josea]

You speak about a “right to copy.” Could you please tell me where that right is given? I know of nothing in scripture, Jesus’s teaching, or sacred tradition. It also can’t be a secular right, because it’s illegal.

I guess I’ll just as you to prayfully consider your position, and I’ll prayfully consider mine.

Probably my english. I do not speak about rigth to copy but about copy without permission.

By the way, I said this already that long ago and it was taking almost like a blasfemy: Jesus was the firs one copying by multiplying the breads and the fishes. Of course, the breads could not be subjected to copy right.
Please, do not take this serious, it is just a simple joke!

 

[vz71]

I do not say that is unjust, the only thing here is if we are talking really about stealing or about other thing.

Well, if you do not label the copyrights as unjust laws, then that leaves your obedience to these laws a matter of morality.

Either you follow the law, or you do not.
If you do not, it is sin.

 

[BlaineTog]

Ok, apparently I need to make my words a little more clearly visible:

I KNOW THAT DOWNLOADING MUSIC BLATANTLY BREAKS THE COPYRIGHT AND IS FLAGRANTLY IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW. I HAVE NOT ONCE SAID A SINGLE WORD THAT DENIES THIS. I AM MAKING A DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGALITY AND MORALITY.

Can everyone please stop strawmanning me? It’s getting completelly absurd. I’m starting to think you’re doing it on purpose.
"Harmony1988:

I’m amused at the way you try to dance around this issue and even being naive enough to embellish your statements as if trying to intimidate us with irrelevant definitions.

If they are irrelevant, then it should be no problem for you to refute them.

One thing for sure is, you would be immediately convicted if caught.

I severely doubt they’d bother, since I either own most of the stuff I have downloaded (I just want it in mp3), or it isn’t being produced, much less sold, anymore.

Splitting hairs about the definition of stealing aside, are you making the claim that the copyright is an unjust law?

Unreasonable, maybe. I don’t pretend to know what the laws should be, but it is completelly ridiculous to ask us to buy something before we’ve had a chance to see whether I want to or not.

You can attempt to show theft has not taken place. And if you severely limit what is being talked about, you may succeed.

I also claim this. The difference between this and theft is that the thief keeps what he has stolen, whereas I’m either going to swiftly purchase the object or swiftly delete it.

 

[vz71]

I KNOW THAT DOWNLOADING MUSIC BLATANTLY BREAKS THE COPYRIGHT AND IS FLAGRANTLY IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW. I HAVE NOT ONCE SAID A SINGLE WORD THAT DENIES THIS. I AM MAKING A DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGALITY AND MORALITY.

Can everyone please stop strawmanning me? It’s getting completelly absurd. I’m starting to think you’re doing it on purpose.

No one is attempting to create any straw man.
The law, and the duty to obey it are moral issues involved in this discussion. You cannot have one without the other.
Multiple times on this thread, the duty to obey civil law as a moral issue has been pointed out. Perhaps you missed these parts. Although I have a hard time believing this since you actually quoted out of a post in which I pointed out the duty to obey the law.

So let me spell it out (again). Catholics have a duty to obey civil law.
Unless the law is an unjust law, you must obey.
Else, you are acting immoral.

There it is.
It is LAW
And it is also a moral issue that this law must be obeyed.

 

[vz71]

…it is completelly ridiculous to ask us to buy something before we’ve had a chance to see whether I want to or not.

Quite right. It is completely ridiculous.
So don’t buy into it.

I won’t buy a car without a test drive, likewise I will not buy music without knowing what I am getting. If there is no moral way to know what I am getting in that MP3, I don’t bother buying it.

And you know what…I never miss it. After all, without being able to sample it, what is there to miss in not buying?

It would seem that the record companies have gotten you so twisted around their fingers that you will violate God’s law to get a chance at a sample. That is ridiculous.

 

[BlaineTog]

No one is attempting to create any straw man.

Every time someone in this thread has claimed I don’t know the copyright laws, they have strawmanned me. And there have been many of those times.

The law, and the duty to obey it are moral issues involved in this discussion. You cannot have one without the other.
Multiple times on this thread, the duty to obey civil law as a moral issue has been pointed out. Perhaps you missed these parts.

I didn’t miss them. I had simply already responded to them, at least implicitly. I have also responded to the subject explicitly several times. I tire of repeating myself.

Quite right. It is completely ridiculous.
So don’t buy into it.

…

It would seem that the record companies have gotten you so twisted around their fingers that you will violate God’s law to get a chance at a sample. That is ridiculous.

If the law is ridiculous, then it’s not a moral violation to violate it.

 

[josea]

No one is attempting to create any straw man.
So let me spell it out (again). Catholics have a duty to obey civil law.
Unless the law is an unjust law, you must obey.
Else, you are acting immoral.

There it is.
It is LAW
And it is also a moral issue that this law must be obeyed.

Mmmmmm, I do not think you are completely right. We are not due to obey every civil law form themorla point of view. There are some that are morally irrelevant. Like for instance that I can not smoke in some public places or that my dog is using the street as toilet. No obeying this law is not a sin. It can be prosecuted but it is not a sin, and do not come now with the 5th commandment. Yo can not tell me that if I smoke in a public place and, because the law is protecting the no-smokers, I am comitting a sin against the 5th. To me, this is the same when infringing copyright. Beaking this law does not automatically means commiting a sin against the 7th.

 

[josea]

Sorry about the English in my post before, I did not correct it.

 

[antimon]

just use free software and you won’t have to bother with such problems

 

[edwest2]

This is bad reasoning as books and music aren’t in the same category. Please read copyright law before further discussing.

In particular in regards to popular music read the RIAA’s documentation regarding it, there is plenty.

You obviously don’t know the law. I’ve filled out forms from the Copyright Office and discussed copyright law with attorneys.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Harmony1988]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that when you purchased music you did get a license to play it. The company still has the rights to it, but you get a license to use it under certain circumstances (i.e. a song downloaded on iTunes can be played on up to 5 computers).

Isn’t it the same concept of when you watch a movie where it says “licensed for private viewing in homes only?”

Not sure, so thanks if you can answer it.

Yes you do have a license to play it, but you don’t have have a license to distribute it

Of course you get a license to play it. What I was referring to as license is a license of distribution, essentially making copies of it and distributing.

Under law you may make copies of your music for your own purposes such as backup. Unauthorized reproduction applies to people who copy it but start distributing it.

 

[Harmony1988]

If they are irrelevant, then it should be no problem for you to refute them.

Um hello, if they are irrelevant, there is no need for me to refute them.

This is like talking about the effect of chickens in a baseball game and asking me to refute that chickens don’t affect baseball.

 

[Harmony1988]

Quite right. It is completely ridiculous.
So don’t buy into it.

I won’t buy a car without a test drive, likewise I will not buy music without knowing what I am getting. If there is no moral way to know what I am getting in that MP3, I don’t bother buying it.

And you know what…I never miss it. After all, without being able to sample it, what is there to miss in not buying?

It would seem that the record companies have gotten you so twisted around their fingers that you will violate God’s law to get a chance at a sample. That is ridiculous.

This confirms my suspicions that you haven’t walked into a music store. For the last say 10 years? There have had plenty of CD players with headphones in aisles with the latest CD’s in them. If they don’t, take the CD upto the counter and ask them to play it for you. Infact I’ve done this a lot, and once when I bought a CD the guy asked me if I wanted it played.

Have you seen the stereo controls behind the counter of many of the stores? It’s not JUST there for the manager’s listening pleasure.

Alternatively use services such as amazon, iTunes to ‘preview’ music or go to the website of the band/artist to preview, some infact have full length songs of certain albums.

They have everyright not to give ‘trials’ to others, you don’t have a right to say that it’s unfair, you don’t own the music. The rights of it belongs to the record companies.

This argument that you don’t know what you are buying doesn’t hold, if you know how to download, you surely know how to preview songs on amazon or Itunes or the thousands of other services offered.

I think with the car example you will prove my point. What if they don’t let you trial the car, are you going to jump into it and forcefully test it? This is exactly what you are doing with the music situation.

 

[vz71]

If the law is ridiculous, then it’s not a moral violation to violate it.

Wow. Where do we get this from?
Please site the appropriate scripture or church document.

You are under obligation to follow civil law (that includes the copyright law being discussed here) unless the law is unjust.

Your assessment of ridiculous does not constitute unjust.

 

[vz71]

Beaking this law does not automatically means commiting a sin against the 7th.

So how do you twist around the definitions to justify yourself?
Just curious.

 

[Harmony1988]

Wow. Where do we get this from?
Please site the appropriate scripture or church document.

You are under obligation to follow civil law (that includes the copyright law being discussed here) unless the law is unjust.

Your assessment of ridiculous does not constitute unjust.

That’s true, the term ridiculous is rather subjective, especially when it comes to laws. Civil laws regarding luxuries such as music must be adhered to.

 

[vz71]

This confirms my suspicions that you haven’t walked into a music store. For the last say 10 years? There have had plenty of CD players with headphones in aisles with the latest CD’s in them. If they don’t, take the CD upto the counter and ask them to play it for you. Infact I’ve done this a lot, and once when I bought a CD the guy asked me if I wanted it played.

Have you seen the stereo controls behind the counter of many of the stores? It’s not JUST there for the manager’s listening pleasure.

Right.
But you see, if we bring up these moral alternatives, the excuses being used to violate the law are no longer there.

And they are forced to admit what is really going on.

Turn off that bright light!

 

[Harmony1988]

Right.
But you see, if we bring up these moral alternatives, the excuses being used to violate the law are no longer there.

And they are forced to admit what is really going on.

Turn off that bright light!

Wait the way I’m seeing it is you are agreeing to the moral alternatives now?

I kind of misread your post I quoted earlier. I thought you said you are not going to buy it if you haven’t heard it and therefore you will download it and trial it, but I guess that’s not what you meant huh ?

I guess I should slow down a bit when reading.

 

[reggieM]

Every time someone in this thread has claimed I don’t know the copyright laws, they have strawmanned me. And there have been many of those times.

I understood your argument and it seems reasonable to some extent, but it really doesn’t hold up under analysis.

If you get permission from the copyright holder/owner of the product to preview the material before purchasing then you’re completely fine.

It’s the same with any downloading. If the company that is selling the product gives you written, explicit permission to download the item for free and use it for whatever you want – as some pop bands have done with their CDs recently – then you’re ok.

If you don’t know what the policy is, then you have the duty to ask permission. If the copyright holder says “no”, then you can’t seek out an illegal copy to preview.

That’s just common courtesy. Ask the people who produced it and who own the property rights to it.

Otherwise, we’d all just be creating our own laws for other people’s property.

Additionally, downloading an electronic file, while not the same as stealing a material asset (where you would have a kind of loss), certainly is a loss in many other ways to the owner.

First, the product is devalued because free, illegal copies are being passed around. This also hurts the reputation of the company that produced the product. Additionally, the downloaded version may not be of the quality and standard that the owner wants to have in the marketplace – thus it is devalued that way.

Finally, part of the reason to purchase some things is to have the privilege of seeing it.

How could your argument work (that it’s ok to “preview” something and then buy it if you like it) with something like a film?

We pay a ticket price for a movie just to get in the door. The price is based in part on the fact that you can’t just preview the file first and decide to pay later.

That’s an important part of the attraction of the product. You have to pay to get in the door.

 

[Harmony1988]

I understood your argument and it seems reasonable to some extent, but it really doesn’t hold up under analysis.

If you get permission from the copyright holder/owner of the product to preview the material before purchasing then you’re completely fine.

It’s the same with any downloading. If the company that is selling the product gives you written, explicit permission to download the item for free and use it for whatever you want – as some pop bands have done with their CDs recently – then you’re ok.

If you don’t know what the policy is, then you have the duty to ask permission. If the copyright holder says “no”, then you can’t seek out an illegal copy to preview.

That’s just common courtesy. Ask the people who produced it and who own the property rights to it.

Otherwise, we’d all just be creating our own laws for other people’s property.

Additionally, downloading an electronic file, while not the same as stealing a material asset (where you would have a kind of loss), certainly is a loss in many other ways to the owner.

First, the product is devalued because free, illegal copies are being passed around. This also hurts the reputation of the company that produced the product. Additionally, the downloaded version may not be of the quality and standard that the owner wants to have in the marketplace – thus it is devalued that way.

Finally, part of the reason to purchase some things is to have the privilege of seeing it.

How could your argument work (that it’s ok to “preview” something and then buy it if you like it) with something like a film?

We pay a ticket price for a movie just to get in the door. The price is based in part on the fact that you can’t just preview the file first and decide to pay later.

That’s an important part of the attraction of the product. You have to pay to get in the door.

Very good reggie.