Downloading In Canada Is Legal, Is It Still A Mortal Sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steven87
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Steven87

Guest
I frequently download tv shows that I missed on tv, and I also download the odd mp3 track here and there. It has been declared legal to download/upload In Canada.

I’m in the middle of downloading a tv show right now and downloading songs for my brothers girlfriend to put on her mp3 player and i am caught in the middle of a dilemma.

First of all I don’t understand some things, you can record a song off the radio but you can’t download it off the internet. You can record a television program off the tv but you can’t download them off of the internet. IM SO CONFUSED!!!

Since I am obeying the law, but doing something that some classify as stealing, Am I comitting a mortal sin?

HELP!
 
40.png
Steven87:
I frequently download tv shows that I missed on tv, and I also download the odd mp3 track here and there. It has been declared legal to download/upload In Canada.

I’m in the middle of downloading a tv show right now and downloading songs for my brothers girlfriend to put on her mp3 player and i am caught in the middle of a dilemma.

First of all I don’t understand some things, you can record a song off the radio but you can’t download it off the internet. You can record a television program off the tv but you can’t download them off of the internet. IM SO CONFUSED!!!

Since I am obeying the law, but doing something that some classify as stealing, Am I comitting a mortal sin?

HELP!
Click to expand...
Not if you don’t see it as stealing. Are your downloads hurting the artists in some way?

Do you just feel guilty because you are getting something for nothing? That’s how I feel sometimes about what Christ has done for us.

Alan
 
I dont see how downloading is a sin,all you are doing is sharing files with other people around the world!
 
40.png
Steven87:
I frequently download tv shows that I missed on tv, and I also download the odd mp3 track here and there. It has been declared legal to download/upload In Canada.

HELP!
Click to expand...
Code:
Anything that is legal in Canada is a sin! 😉

Blessings,
Shoshana
 
I’m not familiar with law in Canada, nor am I a lawyer, but I have a passing familiarity with some of the basic principles of intellectual property law.

There’s a concept known as “fair use”, in which some limited amount of copying may be permitted. For example, you can copy sentences and limited portions of paragraphs (giving credit, of course), but not entire chapters.

If you buy a recording, then you can make a copy for your own use or for a friend (although I get uncomfortable with even that), but “fair use” doesn’t include the idea that you have half a million friends or that you can post the recording in a public forum for any and all to copy.

I think the difference between this and recording on the radio is that you can’t very well record an entire album off of the radio, and even if you did then you’d still only be able to share it with a couple of friends.

The audio recording industry developed with the revenues being generated through many discreet sales of recordings. Television developed in a very different manner; the intellectual property owners of television programming are fully paid through the advertising sales at the time of broadcast, so I imagine that that’s at least part of the reason the two media are treated differently.
 
I agree with AlanFromWichita. If it’s legal, then there’s no sin in breaking the law. That would leave the question as, is it moral? Here’s my view on that:

The artists make VERY little on their albums. The vast majority of that money goes to the recording companies, and then to the retailer. The artist makes money from concerts, swag and other contracts, such as endorsements. So, saying that downloading music hurts the artist is untrue, IMO. If anything, it increases awareness of their music, and makes it more likely that you would go see a concert or buy merchandise.

This also enables the aspiring artist to get his music out to everyone easily, which puts them on track for a music career much easier than it would have been to go through an agency. So, in that way, downloading music can even be beneficial.

So, that leaves the question of, are you hurting the recording agency or the retailer? Well, the retailer has no implicit “right” to make money on the music, so no harm done there. And as far as uncontracted artists, there is no agency to harm. For the big stars, who do have contracts with agencies, those agencies have a right to make money from sales of the artists music. But, I believe that the recording industry needs to change their business model to fit the times. How is it that purchasing the MP3 is almost as expensive as buying it on a CD, where it’s been manufactured, and gone through several layers of businesses making money on it? The recording industry is greedy. They should add value to purchasing a CD or an MP3. For example, make the music available at a lower quality online without charge, and then make it higher quality if you pay. Then, I could go download the music to check it out, and if I really like it, I’m pretty likely to go buy it. Add posters to the CDs or pictures, or things like that. But, as it stands, I believe that the RCIA is a money and power hungry business, and that their problem is that they recognize that artists may not need them as much. I have no moral problems downloading music, I just wish it were legal in the U.S.

But, if your conscience says it’s wrong, then don’t do it.

As far as t.v. shows - I think it’s silly to say you can’t download them online - if you owned a TiVo, you could record it…
 
This reply has nothing whatsoever to do with downloading.

Legality under national law is not a good guideline for deciding if something is sin. I could easily say: “Abortion / Promiscuity / Pornographic Movies / Gambling / Becoming a Satanist etc etc are legal in the United Kingdom. Are they still mortal sins?”

That question would be ridiculous I know. I haven’t got an answer on whether someone’s downloading things is wrong. But basing right and wrong on whatever the law says at a particular time leaves a lot to be desired when confronted by an eternal God.

Sorry to moan in this way.

If it was a mortal sin - it still is. If it wasn’t a mortal sin - it still isn’t.
 
Well if thats a mortal sin, then so is recording tv shows on a vcr :hmmm:
 
40.png
asteroid:
This reply has nothing whatsoever to do with downloading.

Legality under national law is not a good guideline for deciding if something is sin. I could easily say: “Abortion / Promiscuity / Pornographic Movies / Gambling / Becoming a Satanist etc etc are legal in the United Kingdom. Are they still mortal sins?”

That question would be ridiculous I know. I haven’t got an answer on whether someone’s downloading things is wrong. But basing right and wrong on whatever the law says at a particular time leaves a lot to be desired when confronted by an eternal God.

Sorry to moan in this way.

If it was a mortal sin - it still is. If it wasn’t a mortal sin - it still isn’t.
Click to expand...
My point when I talked about the legality was that if it’s illegal, then it’s a sin, regardless of whether it would be a sin otherwise. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. But if it’s illegal, then it’s wrong, unless God’s word says otherwise. But, if it’s legal, then the question on whether it is a sin or not is based on the action, not the legality. And I think Steven87 brought up the legality because in many places it is considered illegal here, so that would have been many people’s assumption. He’s wondering if there’s a sin in the act itself, since legality is a non-issue.
 
40.png
MistyF:
…The artists make VERY little on their albums. The vast majority of that money goes to the recording companies, and then to the retailer. The artist makes money from concerts, swag and other contracts, such as endorsements. So, saying that downloading music hurts the artist is untrue, IMO. If anything, it increases awareness of their music, and makes it more likely that you would go see a concert or buy merchandise.

This also enables the aspiring artist to get his music out to everyone easily, which puts them on track for a music career much easier than it would have been to go through an agency. So, in that way, downloading music can even be beneficial.

So, that leaves the question of, are you hurting the recording agency or the retailer? Well, the retailer has no implicit “right” to make money on the music, so no harm done there. And as far as uncontracted artists, there is no agency to harm. For the big stars, who do have contracts with agencies, those agencies have a right to make money from sales of the artists music. But, I believe that the recording industry needs to change their business model to fit the times. How is it that purchasing the MP3 is almost as expensive as buying it on a CD, where it’s been manufactured, and gone through several layers of businesses making money on it? The recording industry is greedy. They should add value to purchasing a CD or an MP3. For example, make the music available at a lower quality online without charge, and then make it higher quality if you pay. Then, I could go download the music to check it out, and if I really like it, I’m pretty likely to go buy it. Add posters to the CDs or pictures, or things like that. But, as it stands, I believe that the RCIA is a money and power hungry business, and that their problem is that they recognize that artists may not need them as much. I have no moral problems downloading music, I just wish it were legal in the U.S.

But, if your conscience says it’s wrong, then don’t do it.

As far as t.v. shows - I think it’s silly to say you can’t download them online - if you owned a TiVo, you could record it…
Click to expand...
MistyF,
The fact is that neither you nor I own the property rights to the music. The artist does. And if the artist enters a contractual agreement with the label to produce, market and disribute his work, then that’s a matter between he and the label. If I don’t like the agreement, then too bad, it’s not any of my business.

Like it or not, there are significant costs to bringing the product to market, supporting it in the marketplace, a risk that the material won’t sell, and yes, a profit to be made. There’s nothing wrong with that, it’s how the world works.

If I think that the sitcker price for the recording is too high, or I don’t like what I perceive as inconsistencies in those prices, then I’m free to NOT BUY THE WORK.

But I’m not free to steal it, no matter how much I want to rationalize that I am.
 
40.png
neophyte:
MistyF,
The fact is that neither you nor I own the property rights to the music.
Click to expand...
Neither do we own the right to any television shows that we record, or songs that we “tape” on the stereo. Media “piracy” has been going on for as long as there has been media. While it is not right to “rationalize” it, that is what all of mankind has done for every other form of piracy. Tivos don’t cause many people too much guilt, nor do vcr recorders. Downloading music is still relatively new, and I think, in time, it too will be as guilt-free as all the other recording of media that goes on.
 
The mere fact that the civil government promises not to penalize you for doing X is no evidence that X is morally permissible.

Likewise, the fact that the civil government formally threatens to punish you for doing X is no evidence that X is morally wrong, either.
 
40.png
michaelgazin:
Neither do we own the right to any television shows that we record, or songs that we “tape” on the stereo. Media “piracy” has been going on for as long as there has been media. While it is not right to “rationalize” it, that is what all of mankind has done for every other form of piracy. Tivos don’t cause many people too much guilt, nor do vcr recorders. Downloading music is still relatively new, and I think, in time, it too will be as guilt-free as all the other recording of media that goes on.
Click to expand...
You’re discussing different media and industries as though they are the same, but they’re not.

The OP’s question was about why it’s ok to tape TV shows, make limited copies of personally owned recordings, and record individual songs from the radio, but it’s not ok to provide open access to copyrighted works to unlimited numbers of people with no compensation to the legitimate owner of the material (who clearly has an expectation of being compensated).

The principles aren’t hard to grasp, and the law is not so ambiguous that we can’t easily make these distinctions.

It may well be that someday we’ll be able to download intellectual property in this manner without violating the rights of the owner, but that day is not now. For now, it’s STEALING.
 
40.png
Pentecost2005:
Likewise, the fact that the civil government formally threatens to punish you for doing X is no evidence that X is morally wrong, either.
Click to expand...
True, but it is morally wrong to do x due to the fact that in doing so you are not respecting the civil governments laws.

The only exception would be when not doing x would violate a greather law.
 
Well right now my brothers counting on me to make this for his girlfriend and since she will probably end up downloading these songs herself anyway, then would it be so bad for me to just do them for her and skip a step.

I do not want to tell my brother that I can’t because it’s a sin, after that he probably wouldn’t talk to me the same, and I really don’t want to seem this uptight over doing a simple favor.

I’m really confused
 
40.png
neophyte:
You’re discussing different media and industries as though they are the same, but they’re not.

The OP’s question was about why it’s ok to tape TV shows, make limited copies of personally owned recordings, and record individual songs from the radio, but it’s not ok to provide open access to copyrighted works to unlimited numbers of people with no compensation to the legitimate owner of the material (who clearly has an expectation of being compensated).

The principles aren’t hard to grasp, and the law is not so ambiguous that we can’t easily make these distinctions.

It may well be that someday we’ll be able to download intellectual property in this manner without violating the rights of the owner, but that day is not now. For now, it’s STEALING.
Click to expand...
So if one song plays on the radio nationwide, and every person records that one song for personal use…is that stealing? What if every person does this for every song of a particular artist…while always limiting it to personal use. How many copies, how many times does it take for it to go from appropriate personal use to immoral stealing? I would submit that the “not so ambiguous” law would have a hard time drawing the line between stealing and personal use when it comes to specifics.
 
40.png
michaelgazin:
So if one song plays on the radio nationwide, and every person records that one song for personal use…is that stealing?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that every individual in this extremely hypothetical scenario has acted within the limits of fair use.
40.png
michaelgazin:
What if every person does this for every song of a particular artist…while always limiting it to personal use. How many copies, how many times does it take for it to go from appropriate personal use to immoral stealing?
Click to expand...
Under the circumstances you’ve described, my understanding is that it would never go outside of the bounds of fair use.
40.png
michaelgazin:
I would submit that the “not so ambiguous” law would have a hard time drawing the line between stealing and personal use when it comes to specifics.
Click to expand...
And I’d submit that you’re wrong.

Since the objection seems to be that the artists get too small a share of the retail price of the recording, and the labels receive an immorally high profit, tell me, when you rip a copy offline, do you send a check to the artist for what you deem to be his fair share?

Steven87,
You may want to ask yourself: if your brother was asking you to walk into a brick and mortar retailer and waolk out with the disks shoved down your pants, would you do it? Would you do it because if you don’t, he will? Or would you refuse because its wrong?

If it’s important enough for him to get the music that he’s willing to ask you to steal it, it should be important enough for him to go buy it himself. If you don’t do it and tell him why, you’ll like yourself better in the long run for having been honest, and for having made a good witness for the Lord.
 
40.png
neophyte:
MistyF,
The fact is that neither you nor I own the property rights to the music. The artist does. And if the artist enters a contractual agreement with the label to produce, market and disribute his work, then that’s a matter between he and the label. If I don’t like the agreement, then too bad, it’s not any of my business.

Like it or not, there are significant costs to bringing the product to market, supporting it in the marketplace, a risk that the material won’t sell, and yes, a profit to be made. There’s nothing wrong with that, it’s how the world works.

If I think that the sitcker price for the recording is too high, or I don’t like what I perceive as inconsistencies in those prices, then I’m free to NOT BUY THE WORK.

But I’m not free to steal it, no matter how much I want to rationalize that I am.
Click to expand...
I just wanted to point out that even though I am fully capable of doing so, I don’t even have any file sharing software on my system. I don’t own a large MP3 collection anymore, though I used to have about 30 Gig of it. What I do have is mostly stuff I own a CD of, also. Usually when I listen to music, I’m at a computer, and I end up listening to Yahoo’s Launchcast, which I have a paid subscription to.

I don’t think that sharing a file in and of itself is stealing, though. I think there are acceptable reasons for it, but not just to amass a collection of music that you have no rights to.

When I wrote what I wrote earlier, I was being distracted by my kids, and I left out part of what I meant. And that is - I think that the RCIA, in particular, is wrong - they need a new business model - and the way they are going after people like a rabid dog makes me stronly dislike them. Regardless, if you feel like what you are doing is stealing, don’t do it. I own a few Alanis Morrisette albums, and when she puts out another, I’m pretty highly likely to find a way to listen to all the songs before I decide to buy. Since it’s not likely that all songs will be on a service like Launchcast, the only way to hear it all is to either find a friend who has it, or to find MP3s. I’ll probably get a friend to share MP3s. If I like it, I’ll buy it. If not, I haven’t just wasted $20+ on a CD that is non-returnable. There are reasons that make it ok. I don’t see the previous as stealing. I do see the 30GB I used to have as stealing, because I never paid for most of that music. (Though, I’ve since bought the albums of the stuff I actually listened too). There are also really old songs that have lost their copyright - Frank Sinatra’s music, for example. And movies - you know the ones you see on DVD for $3.99 at your favorite discount department store? Those have no copyright, you’re just paying for someone to put them on a DVD for you. If you download them online it isn’t stealing. Even in the U.S.

Still not sure if my point is made…but it’s a grey, fuzzy line. And it would be easy to tell yourself you aren’t stealing, when you are. It is also easy to say someone else is stealing, when they aren’t. Find middle ground, or just don’t do it. (But don’t judge others, you may not know all the facts, but that applies to most things)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top