Allow me to play devil’s advocate.
So, let’s get this straight. I buy a CD, it’s wrong to download the same exact songs from the internet from file sharing in case I lost the CD and did not backup. I buy an album through iTunes, my computer crashes, loose all information, restart, and it’s not wrong to get iTunes back on and redownload all the songs. Explain why the former is wrong and the latter is OK.
Fair question.
The difference is in the license agreement. When you buy a physical CD, you’re buying just that. When you buy from iTunes, the license (which is legal) allows you to re-download it. So, even if the cost is the same, you’ve paid for the ability to re-download and the copyright holder (through iTunes) has sold you a license to re-download. When you buy the file, you’re giving money in exchange for certain privileges. Exercising those privileges is perfectly legitimate.
The other difference is that the internet file sharing service is illegal. They’re distributing illegal copies of songs and that’s what you’re getting–an illegal copy. If the file sharing service is legal and they have a contract with the copyright holder allowing them to do it, then it’s fine (but as far as I know that’s very unlikely)
Why is this morally OK? Ripping = copying, copyrights = do not copy, thus no one should ever rip their CDs or upload the songs to their iPod. Let’s examine the latter, I download songs off iTunes and copy them to an iPod, why is that morally OK and my first question morally wrong?
Again, because of the license. Apple has made legitimate arrangements with copyright holders allowing Apple to sell their music according to certain terms. One of those terms is that the end user is given a license to upload those songe to iPods. Again here, you’re merely exercising a privilege that you’ve paid for.
There’s a principle called “fair use” that allows a person who owns something that’s copyrighted to make strictly personal copies for one’s own use. I can copy a single page of a copyrighted book, for example, but I can’t copy the whole thing and distribute it to friends. The legalities of “fair use” are better answered by a lawyer than a priest, but suffice to say that personal use of music that you’ve legally bought is not morally wrong.
As long as you paid for the CD, there’s no problem with putting it onto a portable unit because it’s just a different way of listening to what is legitimately yours.
Examine the question again, I asked is it morally wrong to loan a CD with the intent to get it back so your friend can listen to it, but also knowing he rips and downloads songs, free, all day.
Trevor, you’ve changed the question. That wasn’t what you asked in the OP. The first time, you specifically asked about loaning it to someone knowing that the other would copy it. You changed it the second time around. Either way though, the answer is that it’s still morally wrong because the first time, one knows that the other will make an illegal copy, the second time, one certainly expects that the friend will make an illegal copy. It doesn’t matter though because regardless of how it’s phrases, one is still materially participating in someone else’s crime, and someone else’s sin. It’s still wrong.
I know you’re serious about asking these questions, so please bear with me as I try to respond here.
Let’s take a different example.
If you walk into a store and there’s a display of apples, the display says “apples 5 cents” you can pick up an apple, hand the clerk a nickel and walk out. Perfectly legitimate.
If you pick up 2 apples, but only pay 5 cents, then that’s stealing. You know that. That was Tuesday.
Go back to the store on Wednesday, and you see a new sign “apples, 2 for 5 cents” Of course, if you hand over a nickel and take 2 apples, you’re not stealing. Why was it stealing on Tuesday but not Wednesday? Simple, because the terms of the sale changed. The store owner has decided to “change the terms” and say that the customer is allowed to take 2 apples today even though it was only one yesterday. Same with music licenses. If the copyright holder decides to change the terms and tell the customer “you’re allowed to download this music onto as many devices as you own” then you’re not doing anything wrong by taking advantage (within reason) of that license.
Back to the apples. If you buy an apple for 5c at “Mr. A’s grocery” that’s all you get. You can’t go across the street to “Mr B’s grocery” and take an apple from the display just because you “already paid for it” across the street. Same with music. If you buy a CD, that’s what you get. You’re not entitled to download an MP3 just because you already own the music on the CD.
As for downloading from illicit sites: Just because you buy a CD from a store, that doesn’t entitle you to download a “free” copy from an illegal site. That would be like knowing that Mr Bs apples were actually stolen from Mr As store when he wasn’t looking, and accepting a “free” apple from Mr B just because he’s willing to give it to you for no charge. You know that would be a form of stealing. Whether it’s music or apples, it’s still stealing.
Back to your friend. If you knowingly and materially participate in someone else stealing something (whether it’s physical or intellectual property) it’s still morally wrong. Although it doesn’t rise to the same level, it’s like someone asking you “I’m going to rob a bank and I need a getaway car, may I borrow yours for the day?” You already know that’s wrong. Same with music. If you know that the friend will make an illegal copy, you’re guilty of participating in the sin of another. From what you describe, it’s hard to imagine that your friend would “not” make an illegal copy, so if you participate you’re likely guilty.
Try that on for size and let me know your thoughts.
