Download a software is a sin?

[josea]

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

Just curious.

I am not twisting any argument to justify myself. I am trying to understand if any civil law must be followed, and I think that one is not morally obliged to follow any civil law. There are some morally irrelevant. They do not have to be unjust in order to be able to break them without doing something immoral. They might be just irrelevant, as in the examples I gave before.
The issue here is if violating copyright is stealing or not. I think it is not, it is just a violation of a civil law that interested people are trying to identify as stealing.
An example why the issue is not clear at all is the little advert shown in Spain before films or in some DVDs, where a person is stealing a TV and comparing this with copying the DVD. This is absolute nonsense. It is not the same, but they need this campaign to try to impose an idea that is not immediate clear to everybody. The same people are now trying to impose a tax in Spain to every virgin and empty DVD you are buying justifying this with the idea that you COULD use that DVD for copying a film. It is all about money.
Copying is not stealing. Violating copyright is just violating copyright but it is not stealing. If I copy a song I am not making any harm to the author. As we did not do it when we were recording films from TV or song from the radio on tape.
What is that?

IF IT WAS NOT A SIN IN THE ANALOGIC ERA WHY SHOULD IT BE NOW IN THE DIGITAL ONE?

I did know that changing from tape to CDs could modify the nature of the moral act and convert it in a mortal sin!!!

There was no Church document, no theologian talking about recording films from TV or songs from radio on tape in the last 30 years and nobody cared about it. Why should it be now a sin?

 

[vz71]

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.

Agreed with the moral alternatives the entire thread.
I believe you mistook my position for BlaineTog

 

[sires6]

If you couldn’t afford to buy an expensive software and download it free from a website. Then is it committed a sin of stealing?

You know what I do with short cash and need? Find a freeware, shareware or open source version and use that. www.openoffice.org is an excellent example: Better than MS Office and totally free!

Oh and don’t fool yourself, if you are questioning the legitimacy, then you know in your heart if you are downloading something that you should pay for, then it’s stealing.

I teach people to train their dog. I offer a course for free with some info and a paid course for a little bit of money. If someone downloaded and then offered it to someone else, I am losing money. That person stole from me. Whether it was a “digital” product or an “analog” product, it was still my intellectual rights being stolen.

 

[Harmony1988]

Agreed with the moral alternatives the entire thread.
I believe you mistook my position for BlaineTog

And indeed I did, I misread something in your post and hence my subsequent rant. Sorry about that.

Forgive me

 

[vz71]

I am not twisting any argument to justify myself. I am trying to understand if any civil law must be followed, and I think that one is not morally obliged to follow any civil law.

Except one thing. The Catholic faith demands civil laws be followed unless the law itself is an unjust law. Now if you wish to argue that copyright laws are unjust, that is fine, but otherwise you are under moral obligation to follow the law.

They do not have to be unjust in order to be able to break them without doing something immoral.

If the law is unjust, then breaking it is not immoral.
If the law is not unjust, then the very act of violating it is immoral.

They might be just irrelevant, as in the examples I gave before.

The issue here is if violating copyright is stealing or not.

No…the issue is the morality of breaking copyright laws.
I do not care if you call it stealing or not. The copyright laws already are in place, and exclude illegal copies of software (or data files).

I think it is not, it is just a violation of a civil law that interested people are trying to identify as stealing.

An example why the issue is not clear at all is the little advert shown in Spain before films or in some DVDs, where a person is stealing a TV and comparing this with copying the DVD. This is absolute nonsense. It is not the same, but they need this campaign to try to impose an idea that is not immediate clear to everybody.

How they wish to portray their law is their business.
How we follow it is ours. I would agree that the analogy is ridiculous. But bad analogies still do not justify violation of copyrights.

The same people are now trying to impose a tax in Spain to every virgin and empty DVD you are buying justifying this with the idea that you COULD use that DVD for copying a film. It is all about money.

‘All about the money.’
You are right. But does this make the law unjust?

Copying is not stealing. Violating copyright is just violating copyright but it is not stealing.

Violating copyright is morally wrong.

If I copy a song I am not making any harm to the author. As we did not do it when we were recording films from TV or song from the radio on tape.

What is that?

That is the civil law in action.
Weird, annoying, and a moral obligation to follow.

IF IT WAS NOT A SIN IN THE ANALOGIC ERA WHY SHOULD IT BE NOW IN THE DIGITAL ONE?

I did know that changing from tape to CDs could modify the nature of the moral act and convert it in a mortal sin!!!

The law was not in place in the analog days. At least not in any fashion the common person needed to worry with. But the law is in place now.
As far as mortal sin goes, there are three things that must be met for a sin to be mortal. It must be serious, you must have full knowledge of the seriousness, and you must freely do it.
If you believe the violation of this law is mortal, you may want to consult your confessor.

There was no Church document, no theologian talking about recording films from TV or songs from radio on tape in the last 30 years and nobody cared about it. Why should it be now a sin?

Because the civil laws address it, and there is an obligation to civil law.

 

[Harmony1988]

I am not twisting any argument to justify myself. I am trying to understand if any civil law must be followed, and I think that one is not morally obliged to follow any civil law. There are some morally irrelevant. They do not have to be unjust in order to be able to break them without doing something immoral. They might be just irrelevant, as in the examples I gave before.
The issue here is if violating copyright is stealing or not. I think it is not, it is just a violation of a civil law that interested people are trying to identify as stealing.
An example why the issue is not clear at all is the little advert shown in Spain before films or in some DVDs, where a person is stealing a TV and comparing this with copying the DVD. This is absolute nonsense. It is not the same, but they need this campaign to try to impose an idea that is not immediate clear to everybody. The same people are now trying to impose a tax in Spain to every virgin and empty DVD you are buying justifying this with the idea that you COULD use that DVD for copying a film. It is all about money.
Copying is not stealing. Violating copyright is just violating copyright but it is not stealing. If I copy a song I am not making any harm to the author. As we did not do it when we were recording films from TV or song from the radio on tape.
What is that?

IF IT WAS NOT A SIN IN THE ANALOGIC ERA WHY SHOULD IT BE NOW IN THE DIGITAL ONE?

I did know that changing from tape to CDs could modify the nature of the moral act and convert it in a mortal sin!!!

There was no Church document, no theologian talking about recording films from TV or songs from radio on tape in the last 30 years and nobody cared about it. Why should it be now a sin?

Firstly, music is a luxury, so any civil laws regarding it are to be adhered to.
I agree that one cannot follow any civil law, but we are discussing music here. Copyright law affirms the property of the copyrighted material to the correct person.

“Violating copyright is just violating copyright but it is not stealing. If I copy a song I am not making any harm to the author. As we did not do it when we were recording films from TV or song from the radio on tape.”

I think you need to further read the finer points before ranting. Recording from radio is different because radio quality is horrible, it’s 64kbps. What you see floating around on the web are 128kbps and upward bitrates, they are also pristine copies. The RIAA knows that recording directly from the radio is rubbish quality, do you see people doing this often? No, even if they do, they eventually get rid of it, do you see a large radio recorded collection of the beatles hits somewhere? I presume everyone wants to be surprised by a D.J’s voice in the middle or before the start of every song on the radio.

Recording from T.V is actually stealing, laws enforcing copyright were not as stringent as they are now. Since music and movies remains luxury items by economic definition and I guess theological too because we don’t ‘need’ music, the civil laws surrounding them MUST be followed, cases regarding music is not the same as the laws regarding abortion for e.g.

I did know that changing from tape to CDs could modify the nature of the moral act and convert it in a mortal sin!!!

Very funny, do not bring mortal sin directly in here when you haven’t read much into copyright law and can’t make a distinction between civil laws regarding luxury items and civil laws regarding issues that the Bible addresses.

As far as I know there is nothing wrong with making a copy of your music from tape into CD or vice versa for your own use.

Violating copyright is just violating copyright but it is not stealing. If I copy a song I am not making any harm to the author

You clearly haven’t read much on this issue at all. Music industry profits have dropped massively, artists now have to extensively tour instead of depending on CD profits. I frankly don’t care about the profits of the music industry, but I’m bringing this up because you said it doesn’t ‘harm’ the author.

Are you wilfully ignorant or do you not take care in what you type?
Is it that hard to notice that if you download something say a song from Britney Spears’ latest hit you deprive her of a revenue she could have made if you bought it? Now multiply that by the 10 million+ users downloading her songs on the web.

Is this clear or do I need to graphically illustrate this for you?

There was no Church document, no theologian talking about recording films from TV or songs from radio on tape in the last 30 years and nobody cared about it. Why should it be now a sin?

Firstly, theologians aren’t going to go wandering into these kind of areas as laws regarding music and such are changing. I do not know what the law regarding copyright was 30 years ago, but I do know that it has been amended many a time since Napster came into play. Furthermore it’s an error to presume that because no one has said anything about that it’s automatically OK, or to presume because 'everyone did it in back in the day now it’s ok to do it, it’s logically flawed.

 

[AHapka]

Recording from T.V is actually stealing, laws enforcing copyright were not as stringent as they are now. Since music and movies remains luxury items by economic definition and I guess theological too because we don’t ‘need’ music, the civil laws surrounding them MUST be followed, cases regarding music is not the same as the laws regarding abortion for e.g.

Not in the United States it’s not. The Supreme Court has upheld that it is part of the “fair use” exception. The basic guise of the opinion is that since you were legally obtaining the broadcast the first time, you are allowed to make copies for your own use (of course, not distribute them). Same thing with recording off of the radio.

 

[Kevin42]

Besides the fact that we are under obligation to obey laws that are justly set forth, could we not look at this in another light?

Could illegal downloading and “sharing” be looked upon as defrauding a worker of his wages, one of the sins that cries out to heaven for vengeance?

 

[Harmony1988]

Not in the United States it’s not. The Supreme Court has upheld that it is part of the “fair use” exception. The basic guise of the opinion is that since you were legally obtaining the broadcast the first time, you are allowed to make copies for your own use (of course, not distribute them). Same thing with recording off of the radio.

Then that’s fine, however the copyright for downloaded music is quite different. Since when you download music from p2p you never really paid for the music in the first place.

 

[kemushi]

If in the past I have downloaded music, movies and games, and now I realize it is wrong, but I have never shared the files, and do not intend to distribute or share them with either friends or the downloading public, what do I do with the files? Do I have to delete them now? Is it a new sin every time I listen to or watch the files?

What I want to know is for all of these people in this thread who said they once downloaded music/movies and other files, what did you do with the files when you realized it was wrong?

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Yes, its a sin, get over it.

 

[Matthias123]

In Canada in is not illegal to download music. It is only ilegal to upload. Therefore there is no sin as long as you turn off your uploading. It is illegal in the US therefore it is a sin.

It is illegal to download software/games/movies in Canada and the US.

 

[kemushi]

Yes, its a sin, get over it.

Thanks for your royal two cents.

 

[vz71]

If in the past I have downloaded music, movies and games, and now I realize it is wrong, but I have never shared the files, and do not intend to distribute or share them with either friends or the downloading public, what do I do with the files? Do I have to delete them now? Is it a new sin every time I listen to or watch the files?

What I want to know is for all of these people in this thread who said they once downloaded music/movies and other files, what did you do with the files when you realized it was wrong?

Well, every time you utilize the code that has been downloaded illegally, you are benefitting from previous sinful behavior.
Seems to me that if it was wrong initially, it would continue to be wrong after the fact.

I would make the effort to legitimize the copies I had obtained.
Else I would remove the copy completely.

 

[The_Otaku]

Wow, what a coincidence. I was considering making a thread here with this same question.

I didn’t read all the pages up until now, so my apologies if someone answered my question in detail already.

Anyways, I’m an artist. I use programs like Painter and Photoshop to either draw on the computer, or to color pictures I drew off the computer but scanned into the computer to finish in these software programs.

Now, here are my questions and I’ll try and be specific.

1.) We’ve established that downloading free versions of a software program (painter or photoshop for instance) is wrong, no matter what means you used to do that. However, my question is, is it a sin once the version you are using becomes outdated and the company comes out with a newer version?

In other words, they’re not selling the one you ‘stole’ anymore, so there’s no profit being made or lost for them, since they’re focusing on an updated, or newer version. Providing that I do not update to the new version, is it wrong for me to keep the old version and use it?

Some companies will allow you to do this, and will actually provide you with free versions or shareware as a way to get you to buy the newer stuff. Assuming you already have it however, and it wasn’t officially through them, is it wrong to keep it?

2.) As an artist, materials are expensive. In the case of software programs, they’re up in the several hundred dollar range. If you cannot afford the program, and you downloaded it illegally and plan on downloading newer versions or updates illegally, would this even out if you have the intention of buying the software at a later time, when you can actually afford it?

In other words, you need the software now, but cannot afford or justify the expense, but would, when it was possible, buy the legal version.

Considering you’re not doing this out of greed, but because you’re an artist and you need tools, is there some moral leeway that can be given or the sin itself may be mitigated somehow?

An example- you stole the programs by downloading full versions of them illegally, but you create beautiful artwork, maybe even religious artwork, etc. You don’t so much make a profit from the artwork, as you do make a name for yourself and inspire other artists and people, and the programs allow you to have your hobby in a digital format. In other words, you’re doing good, wholesome things with these programs. Do facts such as these mitigate the sin factor? Or will it always be a grave sin because the fact remains you stole it?

3.) Is the sin of theft of software considering ongoing for as long as you have the software illegally? In other words, is it a one-time sin you committed, or does this sin accumulate and become worse the longer you have the programs and the more you make use of them, despite the fact you didn’t steal twice? Would it count like, as if you had stole it 100 times if you had it 100 days past the day you stole and did not delete it or is it considered a one-time sin, and it’s the one-time sin you will be held morally responsible for?

How does the church deal with prolonged sin where the action itself is not perpetuated twice with the same object, but the use of the goods is prolonged?

Thanks for anyone who can clear this up for me. =)

 

[kemushi]

Otaku: nice name. I think your point on outdated software is quite valid. Adobe for example will move to a new version and basically order all outdated copies to no longer be available on shelves or available for sale on vendor sites. CDW-G for example. On CDW-G you can also buy the media CD for roughly 20-30 bucks a lot of the time, and the license you purchase separately or not at all. So then, if licensing is no longer available for an old version, but you happen to have the media, what do you do?

Just an FYI, if you are looking for a somewhat comparable software suite for art I suggest you check out a linux distro called Musix. It has audio, video and graphical applications that are pretty on par with Adobe Suite and the OS is totally free. You can download the image to run as a live disk or you can install it. I have a mac and run it on Parallels. I haven’t checked out the graphic applications yet but I hear they are pretty powerful.

 

[Holly3278]

Yes, if you are downloading a piece of software from a website or through some other means such as peer to peer software for free when the software is supposed to be purchased for a price, that is known as stealing and it is a grave sin. Not only would you be putting your soul in danger of Hell fire by illegally downloading software but you are also putting your computer at risk of infection by viruses, trojans, worms, and spyware. Illegally downloaded software is a common source of computer infections.

 

[kemushi]

Yes, if you are downloading a piece of software from a website or through some other means such as peer to peer software for free when the software is supposed to be purchased for a price, that is known as stealing and it is a grave sin. Not only would you be putting your soul in danger of Hell fire by illegally downloading software but you are also putting your computer at risk of infection by viruses, trojans, worms, and spyware. Illegally downloaded software is a common source of computer infections.

You failed to acknowledge my post concerning the media that one would download, you can just buy a media disk for 20-30 bucks, all you then need is the license key. This is in the case of software.

 

[vz71]

1.) is it a sin once the version you are using becomes outdated and the company comes out with a newer version?

In other words, they’re not selling the one you ‘stole’ anymore, so there’s no profit being made or lost for them, since they’re focusing on an updated, or newer version. Providing that I do not update to the new version, is it wrong for me to keep the old version and use it?

No profit to be made or lost???
so you are saying that rather then purchase a new version of the software, you would rather download a lesser version that is outdated for free.
Seems to me the company effectively has lost a sale there.

But aside from that, the issue is not about stealing, the issue is about the morality of copyright laws. We are under moral obligation to follow just laws. In this case, copyright laws are just.

Some companies will allow you to do this, and will actually provide you with free versions or shareware as a way to get you to buy the newer stuff. Assuming you already have it however, and it wasn’t officially through them, is it wrong to keep it?

If it is within the user agreement that must be accepted upon install, then you may use it.
Else it is wrong.

2.) As an artist, materials are expensive. In the case of software programs, they’re up in the several hundred dollar range. If you cannot afford the program, and you downloaded it illegally and plan on downloading newer versions or updates illegally, would this even out if you have the intention of buying the software at a later time, when you can actually afford it?

No, it does not even out.
Violation of the just law is a sin.
It is wrong for me to steal a car even though I may have every intention of buying it.
Likewise everything in a store. You cannot just walk in and take it, regardless of what you intend on doing later.

In other words, you need the software now, but cannot afford or justify the expense, but would, when it was possible, buy the legal version.

If you cannot afford it, then find a legal alternative.

Considering you’re not doing this out of greed, but because you’re an artist and you need tools, is there some moral leeway that can be given or the sin itself may be mitigated somehow?

A starving man may mitigate some culpability in stealing a loaf of bread. But I highly doubt the need to create art on a computer falls into this same criteria.

An example- you stole the programs by downloading full versions of them illegally, but you create beautiful artwork, maybe even religious artwork, etc. You don’t so much make a profit from the artwork, as you do make a name for yourself and inspire other artists and people, and the programs allow you to have your hobby in a digital format. In other words, you’re doing good, wholesome things with these programs. Do facts such as these mitigate the sin factor? Or will it always be a grave sin because the fact remains you stole it?

Doesn’t matter what you do with the stolen items, the items remain stolen. Assuming you want to go the stealing route here.

I still maintain the real issue is following just laws.

3.) Is the sin of theft of software considering ongoing for as long as you have the software illegally? In other words, is it a one-time sin you committed, or does this sin accumulate and become worse the longer you have the programs and the more you make use of them, despite the fact you didn’t steal twice? Would it count like, as if you had stole it 100 times if you had it 100 days past the day you stole and did not delete it or is it considered a one-time sin, and it’s the one-time sin you will be held morally responsible for?

You only steal an item once.
However I imagine that contingent upon return of the property (if possible) is the forgiveness of the sin.
I would fully expect the confessor to require the item be given up before absolution can be made.

 

[Pulsar]

No profit to be made or lost???
so you are saying that rather then purchase a new version of the software, you would rather download a lesser version that is outdated for free.
Seems to me the company effectively has lost a sale there.

No i don’t think. If you want a version that isn’t comercialized, i don’t see what is wrong in crack it to use. It’s not comercialized! If you want for example, a videogame from year 2000 that you can’t obtain anywere because it’s not legally available, i don’t see what is the issue of download and use it for free. Company actualy don’t produces it! I call it Abandonware.