Download a software is a sin?

[edwest2]

Boy, how many times have I heard that the digital copy doesn’t really “exist.” Tell that to author Stephen King, who, in order to help support electronic book sales, wrote a short story that was available in electronic form only. Someone cracked the encryption and almost needless to say, Mr. King is not interested in doing more electronic “products.”

If you say yes to piracy, people will either fight it or just leave the electronic marketplace.

It’s never OK to steal.

Peace,
Ed

“Well, how about this scenario… or this one… or…” Never.

 

[vz71]

In a way. I mean, stuff like that is my inspiration. Sometimes I’m even asked by my teachers to submit my stories to them.

However, I’m not exactly saying I have a ‘right’. It’s just that obtaining ‘original’ stuff, given my country’s economy, is close to impossible.

So your going to steal it instead.
Sorry, it is immoral to do so. A necessity for life being pilfered may have some reduced culpability. But you are not speaking of a necessity for life, you are talking about games (er, sorry) learning materials.

They’re not as easily obtainable here. I’m practically doing this out of desperation. Although, if I had managed to live in countries like the US or even Japan, I would’ve shifted to buying original immediately since prices for the stuff I need aren’t as expensive as they are here.

About as desperate as all of the kids I saw in line at BestBuy when the latest game platform came out???

If means nothing. It is just a convenient measure for which you can try to justify yourself. In point of fact, there is no reason whatsoever to believe your opportunity to obtain these learning materials would be any easier in the states.

Have you considered shareware, or freeware?
What of Linux? What of OpenOffice?
There is plenty out there that can be utilized. Without jeapordizing your conscience.

 

[vz71]

No, because you’re not taking any actual investment.

Except the worth of the time, effort, and money invested in the creation of the software. But perhaps you can argue that the time and effort is really worthless.

But that argument is really a side track, the copyrights say that you do not have the right to download and use it.
Therefore, you do not.

It is immoral to violate the copyrights for the software.

 

[vz71]

Problem is, the requirements I need for a career like that sorta have higher demands than you’d usually get if you were applying for a job at a grocery store.

Not to sound overly harsh here…BUT…

Maybe you have a point.
I always wanted to be a doctor. But the schooling required costs too much for me to go. I know!!! I’ll steal my way through.

 

[vz71]

No, that’s just the point: you’re not taking it. Taking implies that you are assuming ownership. The digital copy on your computer, though, is ephemeral, a phantasm, a temporary situation, not yours, and you never treat it as yours.

And you have found a way around the copyright how???

 

[BlaineTog]

Boy, how many times have I heard that the digital copy doesn’t really “exist.”

My point was that the difference between taking a book and downloading a copy is that the author has the same amount of money before you download the copy as after, but not the book. This is why the analogy offered of taking a book to review it doesn’t work.

Except the worth of the time, effort, and money invested in the creation of the software. But perhaps you can argue that the time and effort is really worthless.

I am arguing no such thing. You are strawmanning me. I am drawing a distinction between downloading something so that you can own it and downloading something so you can try it out. The former is certainly immoral. My contention is that the latter is not. Can we please focus on the actual place of disagreement?

But that argument is really a side track, the copyrights say that you do not have the right to download and use it.
Therefore, you do not.

The copyrights may or may not be reasonable. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it is morally correct, nor does illegality necessitate immorality.

It is immoral to violate the copyrights for the software.

Yes, we know your position, but we need arguments, not restatements.

And you have found a way around the copyright how???

Ahem:

And I am drawing a distinction between legality and morality. I have said so numerous times. It is manifestly illegal. I’m not claiming otherwise.

How many times do I have to state that the copyright DOES NOT ALLOW you to download it?

 

[edwest2]

I work in the media. What you are talking about is stealing. Period. I work in the electronic media and stealing something that only exists as a digital reality is still stealing. Quit avoiding the facts.

Peace,
Ed

 

[BlaineTog]

I work in the media. What you are talking about is stealing. Period. I work in the electronic media and stealing something that only exists as a digital reality is still stealing. Quit avoiding the facts.

sigh

What you are doing is make statements. Statements aren’t arguments. Arguments lead from premises through logical steps to a conclusion. Arguments are logically persuasive, whereas a statement by itself is essentially meaningless. (Also, whether you work in the media or not lacks logical significance).

I understand that you think it is stealing. You haven’t bothered trying to counter my reasons for thinking that it is not under some circumstances, and for that reason, you haven’t persuaded me to your way of thinking. I will restate one more time so that you can attempt to counter it with the greatest efficiency:

If you download something in lieu of purchasing it, what you are doing is stealing, and therefore immoral. If you download something prior to purchasing it with the full intent of either purchasing it should you decide you like it sufficiently or deleting it immediatelly should you decide you don’t, you are merely previewing it, which isn’t any more immoral than flipping through a book in a bookstore. (Note: this is distinct from reading a book in a bookstore, which, while legal, is immoral because you are essentially stealing the experience of the book).

 

[vz71]

sigh

What you are doing is make statements. Statements aren’t arguments. Arguments lead from premises through logical steps to a conclusion. Arguments are logically persuasive, whereas a statement by itself is essentially meaningless. (Also, whether you work in the media or not lacks logical significance).

I understand that you think it is stealing. You haven’t bothered trying to counter my reasons for thinking that it is not under some circumstances, and for that reason, you haven’t persuaded me to your way of thinking. I will restate one more time so that you can attempt to counter it with the greatest efficiency:

If you download something in lieu of purchasing it, what you are doing is stealing, and therefore immoral. If you download something prior to purchasing it with the full intent of either purchasing it should you decide you like it sufficiently or deleting it immediatelly should you decide you don’t, you are merely previewing it, which isn’t any more immoral than flipping through a book in a bookstore. (Note: this is distinct from reading a book in a bookstore, which, while legal, is immoral because you are essentially stealing the experience of the book).

A preview that you are not intended to have.
The copyright is very plain.

The intent does not define the morality.
There is a reason that we are not changing from the statement that it is stealing. IT IS.

Perhaps you want us to change our arguments around until you can justify yourself? Won’t happen. There are some things that are wrong. What you are trying to justify is wrong.

 

[josea]

How convenient. It is only stealing if it hurts the other person? Nice rationalization.

Well, one of the definitions of stealing is “To take (the property of another) without right or permission.”
But it is not the same to take a pencil that a car from somebody. That is why there are degrees in the gravity of the sin depending on what you take form others. Obviously, taking a pencil is stealing but the victim does not suffer so much as when you take its car. Yes, the seriousness of stealing can be classified according to the value of the object stolen and this is so because of normally that is proportional to the suffering you cause to the victim. It is also so in the civil law. Of course, that does not mean that it is OK to steal from rich people because they will not suffer so much when a car is stolen from them as from a normal poor guy.
I am not talking here about the definition of stealing but about the moral act itself and in this case it is related to the value of the object stolen.

Now, making a copy form a MP3 song file which was subjected to copyright is considered from some of you as stealing. Why? Because you do not have permission to copy it? But who said that this is stealing. Making a copy IS NOT THE SAME as taking the property of another without right or permission”. That is the problem. Here people get confused because of the copyright definition. From the Wikipedia:

“Copyright is a legal concept, enacted by most governments, giving the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it, usually for a limited time. Generally, it is “the right to copy”, but also gives the copyright holder the right to be credited for the work, to determine who may adapt the work to other forms, who may perform the work, who may financially benefit from it, and other, related rights. It is an intellectual property form (like the patent, the trademark, and the trade secret) applicable to any expressible form of an idea or information that is substantive and discrete.”

This is the key point here: by making a copy of a MP3 file or a software I am not taking anything from anybody. I AM NOT STEALING, I AM COPYING IT! I am infringing the copyright law but I am not stealing the property, material or intelectual. The copy is not porperty of the original author.

This is all about the “right to copy”. And right to copy has being invented and compared to an issue of stealing from the people interested due to the putative money the could earn if they could sell the copy you made.

If I make a exact copy of a painting and I hang it on the walls of my house I am not stealing the painting from the painter.

If I make a copy of a book and I read it at home, I am not stealing the manuscript from the author.

If I make a copy of a song and I listen it at home, I am not stealing the original CD and notes from the author.

If I make a copy of a software and use it at home, I am not stealing the original developed software from the author neither from the shelf of a shop where not only the author is hurt but also the intermedite people.

If I make a copy of a photo and make a frame for it and I put it on my desk, I am not stealing the negatives or the only digital file from the author.

In any of those cases I am taking a thing from anybody and therefore, I am not hurting materialy anybody (which is actually what morally stealing is). I am just using the right to copy without permission from the author and this is not stealing. Legally wrong but not necessarily and moraly the same as stealing.

If I would use all of this copies mentioned above to sell them and make money as it would be the original ones it would be legally and morally wrong (and still I am not sure that this should be called stealing) .

I hope this is now clear. But I guess once in our intelectual positions it is dificult to change our minds.

Ah! Still no documents of the magistery about this. Only from some articles from some theologian that does not necessarily has to be right, as many are not about other issues.

 

[vz71]

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

A shaky argument at best, but about the only one left.
You can attempt to show theft has not taken place. And if you severely limit what is being talked about, you may succeed.
However as any victim of theft will tell you, there is much more that has been taken then just the object.

But that still does not address the copyright law.
It is law. And as such, the Catholic has a duty to follow it.
And that makes it a matter of morality.

Unless, of course, the law is unjust.

 

[Kevin42]

Ah! Still no documents of the magistery about this. Only from some articles from some theologian that does not necessarily has to be right, as many are not about other issues.

Earlier you asked for theologians opinions, but now it is not good enough for you?

Anyways, the Church teaches us to give due obedience and respect to authority. We are therefore bound to respect the laws set forth with authority by the government, so long as they are just. There is certainly no reason to see copyright laws as unjust. (Unless by unjust, you mean that they do not please you personally.)

 

[Kevin42]

On the other hand is me. I’ve been raised feeling financially secure and while I don’t take that for granted, the way I’ve been raised has given me a deeper understanding of what it likes to do something not just for the sake of money. Problem is, the requirements I need for a career like that sorta have higher demands than you’d usually get if you were applying for a job at a grocery store.

You know, as a middle class person in America, I have the same problem. However, I made the choice long ago to obey the law regarding such issues, although it certainly would be easier not to.

 

[Harmony1988]

Perhaps I was unclear: downloading materials online that the copyright holder doesn’t allow you to is unequivocally illegal. However, “illegal” doesn’t necessarily mean “immoral.”

I spelled them out above. Downloading something so you don’t have to pay for it is stealing, and thus immoral. Downloading something because you want to see whether or not you want to buy it legally, on the other hand, is ok.

Incorrect, you are dancing around the point.

1. Who does the copyright belong to?
2. What are their terms

I can assure you, the RIAA who licenses most of the music in american and many institutions have a licensing similar to theirs, DO NOT allow p2p or downloading even for ‘trialling’ purposes.

So you saying it’s ok because you want to trial it, does not justify it because you don’t have the license. I’m sorry, it is immoral.

The bottom line is they own the copyright to it, and their license doesn’t permit it. Only when a license does permit it, is when it’s ok.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

 

[AHapka]

In any of those cases I am taking a thing from anybody and therefore, I am not hurting materialy anybody (which is actually what morally stealing is). I am just using the right to copy without permission from the author and this is not stealing. Legally wrong but not necessarily and moraly the same as stealing.

So as long as I don’t materially hurt anybody, I can take what I want? Let’s say you just invented a new method for running a car without gasoline…some form of alternative energy. You egerly patent the idea. I come by your house and photograph the plans. I don’t charge anybody, mind you. I simply post them for free on the Interent. Would that be moral? By your argument it would be fine because I am only copying and not making any money off of it.

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.

 

[Harmony1988]

But you’re not taking their property, nor are you taking the potential income that their property would have garnered them. You’re previewing it, exactly as if you were flipping through a book in a bookstore.

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.

 

[Harmony1988]

No, because you’re not taking any actual investment. The downloaded copy doesn’t cause them actual money loss, only potential.

And I am drawing a distinction between legality and morality. I have said so numerous times. It is manifestly illegal. I’m not claiming otherwise.

No, that’s just the point: you’re not taking it. Taking implies that you are assuming ownership. The digital copy on your computer, though, is ephemeral, a phantasm, a temporary situation, not yours, and you never treat it as yours.

Understandable, but this doesn’t justify stealing. Now, if the software/what-have-you is actually required, like if the teacher assigns it, and you can’t buy it, then that would probably be ok as well, because what are you gonna do, but if you can buy it, you absolutely should. You should first, though, check with the teacher and explain your situation.

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. One thing for sure is, you would be immediately convicted if caught. It’s also clear that you aren’t aware of copyright law.

Read the license agreements please. Also read about ‘unauthorized reproduction’ and how it falls into what you are referring to as ‘temporary’ situation of digital music in your computer that you ‘intend’ to delete later. This has already been covered many a time.

Must I repeat this again ?

You do NOT have a license to the music, EVER. The license outlines what is the right of the user to the music, only licensed distributors have the right to distribute music. Furthermore what makes this ‘trialling’ of music through temporary downloading illegal is, it keeps the p2p networks active which allows other users who are intent on keeping the music to keep doing their illegal business.

Whichever argument you are using, you are directly or indirectly causing a moral dilemma.

Before arguing this further, read more on the issue.

 

[Harmony1988]

sigh

What you are doing is make statements. Statements aren’t arguments. Arguments lead from premises through logical steps to a conclusion. Arguments are logically persuasive, whereas a statement by itself is essentially meaningless. (Also, whether you work in the media or not lacks logical significance).

Arguments are however statements. Look, before trying to get into this stuff make sure you know what you are on about, because you are just tightening the rope around you.

I understand that you think it is stealing. You haven’t bothered trying to counter my reasons for thinking that it is not under some circumstances, and for that reason, you haven’t persuaded me to your way of thinking. I will restate one more time so that you can attempt to counter it with the greatest efficiency:

He doesn’t have to persuade you.

1. You don’t own the license to music
2. What does the license to music say?
3. Books and music are not under the same laws. Essentially, books aren’t governed by the RIAA or other musical institutions of copyright. So your ‘arguments’ over this is useless. Completely useless.

If you download something in lieu of purchasing it, what you are doing is stealing, and therefore immoral. If you download something prior to purchasing it with the full intent of either purchasing it should you decide you like it sufficiently or deleting it immediatelly should you decide you don’t, you are merely previewing it, which isn’t any more immoral than flipping through a book in a bookstore. (Note: this is distinct from reading a book in a bookstore, which, while legal, is immoral because you are essentially stealing the experience of the book).

This is incorrect for which I have noted above, this would be true in absolute terms, however, since you do not own the license to the music you cannot dictate these terms. The RIAA has said, they understand some people preview, but many people doing this kind of things keeps p2p networks and other illegal downloading sources active for more illegal downloading parties. Hence they do not want such previewing. They have full right to say that since they own the license. You don’t. That’s the bottom line. Your intent doesn’t matter, you don’t have the license. You are BREAKING the license.

 

[AHapka]

You do NOT have a license to the music, EVER. The license outlines what is the right of the user to the music, only licensed distributors have the right to distribute music. Furthermore what makes this ‘trialling’ of music through temporary downloading illegal is, it keeps the p2p networks active which allows other users who are intent on keeping the music to keep doing their illegal business.

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.

 

[josea]

But that still does not address the copyright law.
It is law. And as such, the Catholic has a duty to follow it.
And that makes it a matter of morality.

Unless, of course, the law is unjust.

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