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.
40.png
MistyF:
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…
Click to expand...
Are you sure you are not a Jesuit? Your causistry and self justification are exquisite. I don’t know from beans if its a mortal sin, but someone is getting fleeced. Seems like copyright means nothing.
 
40.png
rwoehmke:
Are you sure you are not a Jesuit? Your causistry and self justification are exquisite. I don’t know from beans if its a mortal sin, but someone is getting fleeced. Seems like copyright means nothing.
Click to expand...
Did you read my second post? And is childish name calling really necessary?
 
Sorry Misty, I spent a good part of my life in intellectual property and laws bearing on same. And it seemed like the same old arguements I used to hear from clients who wanted to justify breaking the law. I have now read your second piece. Sorry that I insulted you. Dick
 
There was a topic discussing data sharing before. Let’s say there was an episode of a show on tape. You’ve seen this episode on TV and you are able to record it on tape rather than buying it or you can tape a copy of that tape that says “No reproducing or selling 1 Million Dollar Fine”. Do you think that taping it off the TV is a sin?
 
A lot of people seem to be against it, so why is there only one vote for yes, and 18 for no?

Am I missing something?
 
I certainly did not mean to imply it was not a sin. I just am not sure of the gravity of the theft which is what it is. Gravity probably would depend on how much stuff your stealing. An occasional song or the equivalent of many CD’s worth. Steal a nickel not too serious, but still wrong. Steal five bucks still wrong but certainly getting very questionable. The fact that you are having qualms is a good indicator that your concense[sic] is telling you something.
 
40.png
MistyF:
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.
Click to expand...
And on this we agree.
40.png
MistyF:
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.
Click to expand...
Perhaps they do need a new model, but the current model is what it is. It doesn’t matter whether or not someone feels like they’re stealing, if they ARE stealing then they shouldn’t be and the label has every right and responsibility to go after them. If I was them, I wouldn’t care a whole lot about whether or not people liked it.
40.png
MistyF:
…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.
Click to expand...
The reason that it’s ok is that it falls within the criteria of fair use. Your friend throws you a copy, you like it, and buy the disk. This is a far cry from your friend making it available to anyone and everyone.
40.png
MistyF:
There are also really old songs that have lost their copyright… If you download them online it isn’t stealing. Even in the U.S.
Click to expand...
Of course it’s not stealing to copy uncopyrighted material, that’s what “public domain” means - but I don’t believe that that’s what the OP was asking about.
40.png
MistyF:
Still not sure if my point is made…but it’s a grey, fuzzy line.
Click to expand...
If your point is that it’s alright to not break copyright laws, but that it’s not alright to steal copyrighted material, then I’m glad we agree. But as far as I can tell, it’s not the law that’s fuzzy.
 
40.png
neophyte:
My understanding is that every individual in this extremely hypothetical scenario has acted within the limits of fair use.

Under the circumstances you’ve described, my understanding is that it would never go outside of the bounds of fair use.

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?
Click to expand...
Ok your answers to the first two questions are contradictory to the last. You claim that we can record songs all day long from the radio, and this is morally acceptable, yet, if we “record” one song off the internet, we owe the artist a check? How do you rationalize that? It is either all acceptable (as long as it is for personal use) or it is all unacceptable. You can’t just say radio piracy is acceptable for personal use, while internet piracy, even for personal use, is unacceptable. It sounds like you base it off the fact that the internet (immoral) is simply more efficient at doing what everyone already did from the radio (moral).

Is this your view or do you accept downloading form the internet for personal use as morally acceptable as well? Are you only condemning the “making available” of music via internet, which in that case would fall outside the realm of “personal use?”

I am not sure if i am understanding you correctly.
 
40.png
MistyF:
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…
Click to expand...
Hey Misty,
I wanted to touch on a couple of your thoughts in reverse order. On the TiVo idea versus the internet, the tv show or movies receive revenue for the showing on TV and the ad prices are calculated into compensation. On the internet so far this not possible. This applies to radios as well as they receive revenue and ad prices based on market share. Curious as to anyone’s thoughts on this line of thought.

While RCIA is greedy and I disagree on their scare tactics, the recording industry has the legal rights to go after pirates. While TV and movie companies has not persued pirates as much, this will change in the future (I personally know as I work as a conultant for small businesses, and one of the companies I work for is in talks. My word of caution to anyone would be to abandon questionable P2P networks as soon technology will allow the RCIA to compile a complete dosiers of an individual’s activities on shady sites.) The record do need a new model, but until then, their greed does not justify active piracy.

On the artists, the numbers say that piracy does injure the most popular artists to a moderate degree. I would say that if an artist is against downloading their music, the it is wrong to take it. If the artist encourages the dowloads, the downloads provided by the artist are both legal and moral. I believe a partial solution lies in this area.

Misty, you are right that the techology of file sharing is not bad but is neutral. It can be used for good and bad purposes. I am interested to see the ruling in MGM v. Grokster this year in clarification of the application of Sony v. Universal (commonly referred to as the Sony Betamax case). Yet piracy is not as big of an issue here as in the former Eastern Block countries or Asia (Software piracy rates in China, Ukraine and Vietnam are all over 90% nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/cri_sof_pir_rat&int=-1)

Lastly, on the issue being in Canada. I would be careful around downloading American music (either from groups or the record companies). There are more variables but it may be possible for the RCIA to ask the cooperation for foreign countries with shutting down piracy.

I welcome anyone’s thoughts, insights and corrections. Thanks and God Bless.
 
40.png
Steven87:
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
Click to expand...
Hey Steven,
I am not going to determine the morality of the act for you here, but I want to caution against the line of thought above. In Canada, the sharing is legal so I’ll leave that best up to you to decide although I would caution on American products due to the exposure I have had to both sides of the fence and my current work. If downloading is immoral, the girlfriend’s possible action cannot justify you to “skip a step”. I am not saying that you can’t in this case, but I want to point out that in other cases the logic of skipping a step does not allow one to act immorally or illegally (unless it violates natural and/or moral law gravely). I am pretty sure you know this, but I just wanted to make sure. Thanks and God Bless.
 
40.png
slinky1882:
While RCIA is greedy and I disagree on their scare tactics, the recording industry has the legal rights to go after pirates. While TV and movie companies has not persued pirates as much, this will change in the future (I personally know as I work as a conultant for small businesses, and one of the companies I work for is in talks. My word of caution to anyone would be to abandon questionable P2P networks as soon technology will allow the RCIA to compile a complete dosiers of an individual’s activities on shady sites.) The record do need a new model, but until then, their greed does not justify active piracy.
Click to expand...
Yes, two wrongs do not make a right. Side note: I typed RCIA earlier, I meant RIAA. :o
On the artists, the numbers say that piracy does injure the most popular artists to a moderate degree. I would say that if an artist is against downloading their music, the it is wrong to take it. If the artist encourages the dowloads, the downloads provided by the artist are both legal and moral. I believe a partial solution lies in this area.
Click to expand...
Actually, the artist literally makes pennies per album. Not dimes, not nickels, pennies. There may be exceptions, but not many.
 
40.png
MistyF:
Yes, two wrongs do not make a right. Side note: I typed RCIA earlier, I meant RIAA. :o

Actually, the artist literally makes pennies per album. Not dimes, not nickels, pennies. There may be exceptions, but not many.
Click to expand...
Hey Misty,
Thanks the RCIA didn’t seem right to me, but I was eating while typing. Ooops. :o Yes, the RIAA is greedy, and please notice that I said that piracy can injure the “most popular artists”. Most artists are not greatly affected but in reality the popular ones stand the chance to lose the most after the record industry. Out of curiosity, where do you get “pennies”??? I have seen the industry models and distribution of revenues, and while low, I have not seen pennies. Thanks and God Bless.
 
Is downloading music or videos even a *mortal *sin to begin with? Stealing is breaking one of the 10 Commandments, but it’s not a mortal sin as far as I’m concerned.
 
40.png
slinky1882:
Hey Misty,
Thanks the RCIA didn’t seem right to me, but I was eating while typing. Ooops. :o Yes, the RIAA is greedy, and please notice that I said that piracy can injure the “most popular artists”. Most artists are not greatly affected but in reality the popular ones stand the chance to lose the most after the record industry. Out of curiosity, where do you get “pennies”??? I have seen the industry models and distribution of revenues, and while low, I have not seen pennies. Thanks and God Bless.
Click to expand...
When I was taking some classes a few years ago, there was a girl that I met in class who was involved in the record industry. She was involved with promotion for Dido, when Dido was just starting to be known, and had been involved with promotion for other known artists in the past. She is the one who originally told me. I guess that’s not the same thing as seeing a report, but it’s what I’ve always heard since, also. So, maybe I shouldn’t have made that statement. But I’ve always been under the understanding that the artists made almost nothing from record sales alone, and so it made sense.
 
40.png
michaelgazin:
Ok your answers to the first two questions are contradictory to the last.
Click to expand...
No they’re not, because that’s how the law is structured. If you just don’t like the way the law works, fine.
40.png
michaelgazin:
You claim that we can record songs all day long from the radio, and this is morally acceptable, yet, if we “record” one song off the internet, we owe the artist a check?
Click to expand...
Given the argument that the financial structure of the industry is unfair to the artist, I don’t see how anyone could think that my question is unreasonable, and yes, if that’s the reason you use to justify violating copyright law, then you do owe the artist a check. Am I to gather that you don’t actually send it to him?
40.png
michaelgazin:
How do you rationalize that? It is either all acceptable (as long as it is for personal use) or it is all unacceptable. You can’t just say radio piracy is acceptable for personal use, while internet piracy, even for personal use, is unacceptable. It sounds like you base it off the fact that the internet (immoral) is simply more efficient at doing what everyone already did from the radio (moral).
Click to expand...
It sounds to me like you’re refusing to understand both the law and how the industry works.

I’ve never used the term “radio piracy” in this context, nor is it an accurate description of fair use. Radio stations play a few cuts of each album to create a listening audience, which they then use as a base to generate revenue by selling advertising time. A portion of that revenue goes to the label and the artist, who then make additional sales to people interested in the entire recorded work (which NEVER gets played on the radio and so CAN’T be recorded). The broadcasters, labels and artists expect that there will be a certain amount of fair use recording, include the expected amount of such recording in their financial models, and actually rely on it to generate additional sales.

It’s NEVER been expected or allowed that, by the sale of a single disk, the entire work would be made freely available to tens of thousands of people via a third-party business that generates revenue by such trafficking and pays no royalties to the owner of the work.

If the files are being downloaded from a site authorized by the copyright owner and in a manner that they agree to, then of course there’s nothing wrong with it. But if that were the case then the OP would know it and wouldn’t be asking, would he?
40.png
michaelgazin:
I am not sure if i am understanding you correctly.
Click to expand...
I don’t know how to help you understand when telling you doesn’t work. The law is what it is, and I imagine that if I had presented it incorrectly then rwoehmke would have corrected me.

All of these arguments about the different technologies, how things will be or should be different, and the plight of the poor artist (who freely entered into the contract) are irrelevant. If you think that the law or the industry should be changed then that’s a very interesting opinion, but nonetheless: violating copyright law is stealing.
 
Many things are “legal” and yet still sins in the eyes of GOD.:banghead:

To name a few:

abortion
same-sex-marrage
fetal-stem-call research
divorce & re-marrage
birth control

Kathleen Elsie Gibbs
Pray the Rosary and Divine Mercy daily
 
40.png
Steven87:
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
Click to expand...
There’s no question that downloading music that is copyrighted is illegal and is stealing, and thus a sin. You knew this when you posted this message. And since it is a sin, you absolutely should refuse to do it even if your brothers will do it anyway and be mad at you for it.

Jesus didn’t say it would be easy to obey Him, in fact, He said it would often divide families. You’re either going to follow Jesus or not, that is your choice here. What if your brothers asked you to rob a convenience store at gunpoint? Would you do it? Even if they would be mad at you and rob it anyway? So how is this different? The fact that they ignore the law doesn’t give you the right to.

If you want to provide your brother with the music but still not sin, then BUY the music. Try one of the many legal ways to buy music online, see here → mp3.about.com/od/buymp3music/

David
 
I just searched under the ask an apologist section and someone had asked this and the reply from michelle was something along the lines of…

“Downloading isn’t exactly evil, but in some parts of the world there is a law against it, and breaking the law can in itself be a sin”
 
I’d say “no”; as long as you’re not trying to personally profit from it.

I used to record tv shows on vhs and somtimes let family members borrow them. Now I download them with the same purpose. Other than the technology involved nothing has really changed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top