downloading music

[CWBetts]

Actually, the only reason its legal to share books and not move/music/ect files is because the government said so. Nobody is encouraging nobody to break the law here, we are just stating our own opinion (free speech). I also want to note that it really dosen`t matter wether you keep the file or not, because nobody watches a movie more then once or twice. Nobody.

Are you kidding me?! Nobody watches a movie more than once or twice? You obviously do not know any movie buffs (such as myself). I cannot count how many times I have seen Casablanca, The Adventures of Robin Hood, Star Wars, The MAgnificent Seven, and many others. If you say there is absolutely nothing wrong with illegally “sharing” music, then yes, you vary much are encouraging others to break the law.

 

[Carlion]

To adress those who are using the flawed “loaning books” comparison. If you are sharing music in a way that you always have a copy, and your friend always has a copy is not simply the same as loaning a book. You are scanning that book, so that your friend has a permanent digital copy

So making the copy is what makes the act immoral? Then I have to ask, if a person steals a CD from a store, but makes no copies, are they less morally culpable than someone who legally borrowed the CD from a friend and makes thousands of copies via the internet? Sort of like manslaughter vs. first degree murder, maybe?

Maybe that’s it, the number of copies. But that can’t be right, because whether you steal a dollar or a million dollars, either way you’ve committed theft. So quantity can’t be the factor that makes it illegal.

What exactly makes the act immoral?

 

[Benjamin8o8]

While sharing music is not an act that in and of itself is sinful, it is illegal. Breaking the law is sinful. QUOTE]

So what if someone speeds over the speed limit in order to make it to church at time? Is that a sin? I doubt it. Breaking the law can be sinful, but state and Church are two different things. We all know that if I BUY a CD and want others to enjoy it, I have the chance to share it. Just like how I have the chance to buy a CD and have everyone in my house who didnt pay a penny for the CD to enjoy it. Its the same thing.

I believe if we think fairly with an open mind, sharing files throughout the internet can be a sin but in the same it could also be appropriate and logical. -my opinion.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

So you use the word “share” so you can lie to yourself that you aren’t stealing? :tsktsk:
At a library the shared book goes out and is unavailable until it comes back. You keep your “shared” music while sending out illegal copies to your buds.
Now with the Kindle and other devices coming online I’m sure we’ll see book piracy.

so? There is no DVD-rip or CD-rip files until someone BUYS it…and is generous to share.

 

[CWBetts]

CWBetts;5186766:

While sharing music is not an act that in and of itself is sinful, it is illegal. Breaking the law is sinful.

QUOTE]

So what if someone speeds over the speed limit in order to make it to church at time? Is that a sin? I doubt it. Breaking the law can be sinful, but state and Church are two different things. We all know that if I BUY a CD and want others to enjoy it, I have the chance to share it. Just like how I have the chance to buy a CD and have everyone in my house who didnt pay a penny for the CD to enjoy it. Its the same thing.

I believe if we think fairly with an open mind, sharing files throughout the internet can be a sin but in the same it could also be appropriate and logical. -my opinion.

Breaking the law is a sin (venial or mortal, depending on the circumstances). Missing CHurch is a sin. So is sloth (which resulted in you being late because you didn’t want to get out of bed). Ends do not justify means. Ever.When you buy a CD, you bought a plastic disc, which you own, and you may use as you wish. You did not buy the rights to disseminate the contents of the disc. That is the intellectual property of the copyright owner. You only own the physical medium, not the intellectual product. Furthermore, by stealing the intellectual property, you are stealing not only from the recording artist, but also from everyone involved in making the physical product as their income. Most people don’t think about that. It is one of the few things Marx got right. In a consumer society, there is a detatchment from the product and how it got to the store. File sharing is and of itsef is not illegal, but rather the unlimited sharing. Napster (which charges a monthly fee) and iTunes (which has a per download cost) both get around the unlimited aspect by charging, a portion of which goes to pay roylaty fees to the copyright owner, which in turn is used to pay the artist, studio muscicans, engineers, floor sweepers, and the like. Do not confuse physical and intellectual property rights.

 

[xsuasox]

Something to keep in mind:

We have to obey local, state, national, and international law unless these laws are unjust. Just laws are established by legitimate authorities, are publicly known to be actual laws, and they do not conflict with divine law.

The law in the United States says it is illegal to make copies of music (this includes downloadig copies) without paying for each individual file (through a legitimate service like iTunes). This law is not unjust, because it has be made by a legitimate authority, it is publicly known that it is illegal to do so (copyrights), and this law does not conflict with Divine law in any way. That in and of itself is the reason we can’t illegally download music (or tape music from the radio, or rip our friends’ CDs/DVDs etc). If this were an unjust law, breaking it would not be enough, we would also have to make an effort to have the law changed.

Now, the “borrowing” argument is defective in this case. If I borrow your car, but never bring it back to you, then I have stolen it. The money that we spend for music typically pays for our right to own a copy of the music and to enjoy it at our leisure. We can lend out our music to others, and while they have it, they are using it in our name. When the library purchases a book, it has paid for the right to own the book and has the right to lend it out. When the user is done, the book comes back. When we lend out a CD, it comes back, but if a copy is made, then the copy is illegally made and is against the law as it was not authorized by the owner of the actual musical recording itseld (the artist).

Now, this might seem unfair. It might seem like a ploy for the record companies to get rich. maybe it is. If so, that isn’t the issue when it comes to morality. Two wrongs do not make a right. So yes, downloading music illegally is a sin. It’s a sin most of us commit in the digital age. I know, I got to confess it to an abbot once, haha, and he agreed that it was stealing.

• God bless.

 

[jkarp]

If I buy a book at Barnes and Noble, then lend it to you to read, is that piracy? After all, I didn’t purchase a “lending copy” for library use. I purchased a private copy. Does that mean we’re breaking the law when we do that? What if you in turn lend it to a friend of yours, who lends it to a friend of his. That is perfectly legal. But if the copy is digital rather printed, it’s suddenly theft and piracy? That offends all common sense.

No, lending your books & borrowing someone else’s is not piracy - if you were to photocopy the book you just bought and distribute the copies, is. You are also well within your rights to purchase a music CD from the store and lend it to someone else; you may not, however, make a copy of the CD and distribute it.

I guess the confusion between borrowing and stealing is more widespread that I thought . . .

 

[jkarp]

Something to keep in mind:

We have to obey local, state, national, and international law unless these laws are unjust. Just laws are established by legitimate authorities, are publicly known to be actual laws, and they do not conflict with divine law.

The law in the United States says it is illegal to make copies of music (this includes downloadig copies) without paying for each individual file (through a legitimate service like iTunes). This law is not unjust, because it has be made by a legitimate authority, it is publicly known that it is illegal to do so (copyrights), and this law does not conflict with Divine law in any way. That in and of itself is the reason we can’t illegally download music (or tape music from the radio, or rip our friends’ CDs/DVDs etc). If this were an unjust law, breaking it would not be enough, we would also have to make an effort to have the law changed.

Now, the “borrowing” argument is defective in this case. If I borrow your car, but never bring it back to you, then I have stolen it. The money that we spend for music typically pays for our right to own a copy of the music and to enjoy it at our leisure. We can lend out our music to others, and while they have it, they are using it in our name. When the library purchases a book, it has paid for the right to own the book and has the right to lend it out. When the user is done, the book comes back. When we lend out a CD, it comes back, but if a copy is made, then the copy is illegally made and is against the law as it was not authorized by the owner of the actual musical recording itseld (the artist).

Now, this might seem unfair. It might seem like a ploy for the record companies to get rich. maybe it is. If so, that isn’t the issue when it comes to morality. Two wrongs do not make a right. So yes, downloading music illegally is a sin. It’s a sin most of us commit in the digital age. I know, I got to confess it to an abbot once, haha, and he agreed that it was stealing.

• God bless.

Well said.

 

[jkarp]

If it were to become widespread practice to “share” books in the form of providing pdf files of the books on the internet where anyone could download the book for free and have their own copy, them I’m sure the publishing companies and authors would be just as up in arms over this as the record labels and musical artists are.

Google attempted this and, just as you said, the publishing companies were up in arms . . . they filed a law suit in fact. There has been some resolution to this but Google has been prevented from disseminating the full-text of books under copyright:

books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/

 

[Benjamin8o8]

I have a question (and I am not going to reply to any posts because some of you didn`t cover up any of the points I and others users made)

In Canada it is completly legal to download music (possibly in other countries as well), so I guess once you step in Canadas soil, its not a sin, once you step in USAs soil it is a sin. wow.

I thought a sin is a sin, no matter what, but apperantly it boils down to the government.

Here in Germany (where I reside) I asked some of my friends about downloading, they warned me not to because its a risky thing to do. But when I told them what movies I have, they said thats no problem at all because here in Germany they are mainly after those people that download movies that haven´t been released yet. So Im guessing now Im off the hook from “sinning” because the system here isn`t botherered by my actions. However if I go to USA, it becomes a sin because the govenmenrt said so

Since when does the government have the right to decide what a sin is and what`s not.

what about old releases? compaines arnt focused on making prophits from them anyhow, so why would it be a sin if someone downloads a son from 1990s?

 

[CWBetts]

I have a question (and I am not going to reply to any posts because some of you didn`t cover up any of the points I and others users made)

In Canada it is completly legal to download music (possibly in other countries as well), so I guess once you step in Canadas soil, its not a sin, once you step in USAs soil it is a sin. wow.

I thought a sin is a sin, no matter what, but apperantly it boils down to the government.

Here in Germany (where I reside) I asked some of my friends about downloading, they warned me not to because its a risky thing to do. But when I told them what movies I have, they said thats no problem at all because here in Germany they are mainly after those people that download movies that haven´t been released yet. So Im guessing now Im off the hook from “sinning” because the system here isn`t botherered by my actions. However if I go to USA, it becomes a sin because the govenmenrt said so

Since when does the government have the right to decide what a sin is and what`s not.

what about old releases? compaines arnt focused on making prophits from them anyhow, so why would it be a sin if someone downloads a son from 1990s?

You are misunderstanding the sin. It is not “downloading music” but disobedience to authority. We are to obey legitimate authority. If in the USA, downloading music is against the law, then it is a sin because doing so would be in rebellion to legitimite authority. Do you see the distinction? When it comes to obediance to authority, we are to obey even when the act in and of itself is not sinful, it becomes sinful when it is an act of defiance or rebellion. Think about this on a smaller scale. A teenager going out with their friends is not sinful in and of itself. However, if a parent has told them not to for whatever reason, and the teen snraks out anyways in defiance, it becomes a sin. It is the same kind of thing here with downloading music. In and of itself it is not sinful. The government says “don’t do it”, but you do it anyways, then the act of downloading music becomes an act of defiance.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

You are misunderstanding the sin. It is not “downloading music” but disobedience to authority. We are to obey legitimate authority. If in the USA, downloading music is against the law, then it is a sin because doing so would be in rebellion to legitimite authority. Do you see the distinction? When it comes to obediance to authority, we are to obey even when the act in and of itself is not sinful, it becomes sinful when it is an act of defiance or rebellion. Think about this on a smaller scale. A teenager going out with their friends is not sinful in and of itself. However, if a parent has told them not to for whatever reason, and the teen snraks out anyways in defiance, it becomes a sin. It is the same kind of thing here with downloading music. In and of itself it is not sinful. The government says “don’t do it”, but you do it anyways, then the act of downloading music becomes an act of defiance.

Now thats an answer Ive been looking for!

But hey, if I just may counter it with a question:

Lets say the teenager has been grounded for 2 weeks and a week and a half has passed. Now the kid notices that the parrents anger towards the child has passed away and they act as if they have forgotten his actions. If he goes out with his friends without his parrents premision, and the parrents find out but they really dont care, is that really a sin? Did the teenager really disobey his parrents when he noticed they aren´t focused on punishing him anymore? Well, the MPAA really dosen`t care about files that companies aren´t hopining to sell anymore, so what difference does it make if somebody downloads it, even though it is technically illegal?

This is why I said we need to be fair and open minded when we do such a thing.

 

[CWBetts]

Now thats an answer Ive been looking for!

But hey, if I just may counter it with a question:

Lets say the teenager has been grounded for 2 weeks and a week and a half has passed. Now the kid notices that the parrents anger towards the child has passed away and they act as if they have forgotten his actions. If he goes out with his friends without his parrents premision, and the parrents find out but they really dont care, is that really a sin? Did the teenager really disobey his parrents when he noticed they aren´t focused on punishing him anymore? Well, the MPAA really dosen`t care about files that companies aren´t hopining to sell anymore, so what difference does it make if somebody downloads it, even though it is technically illegal?

This is why I said we need to be fair and open minded when we do such a thing.

Agian, as long as the laws in this country remain as they are (and I do not necessarily agree with them) we should refrain from partaking in the activity, as it is illegal. Let me ask you this question: is it ok to steal, if we know we are going to get away with it, and it won’t really be missed?

 

[Carlion]

This law is not unjust, because it has be made by a legitimate authority,

Segregation laws were also put into place by a legitimate governmental authority. So are abortion laws. That doesn’t make those things moral, or choosing not to participate in these things immoral.

Now, the “borrowing” argument is defective in this case. If I borrow your car, but never bring it back to you, then I have stolen it.

In your scenario, I suffer the loss of my car. You have it, I don’t. That’s not the case with copying files. The property is not lost. If no property is missing, then no theft has occurred.

And you can’t make the “intellectual property” argument, because that applies to someone who lays claim to an idea, like a song’s structure and lyrics, that did not originate with them.

With filesharing, there is no theft, plain and simple. The only thing that goes missing is potential profit, but if you’re going to put people in jail for being discriminating in the way they spend their money, then you have to arrest or fine me every time I walk by a restaurant without going in and eating.

 

[CWBetts]

Segregation laws were also put into place by a legitimate governmental authority. So are abortion laws. That doesn’t make those things moral, or choosing not to participate in these things immoral.

In your scenario, I suffer the loss of my car. You have it, I don’t. That’s not the case with copying files. The property is not lost. If no property is missing, then no theft has occurred.

And you can’t make the “intellectual property” argument, because that applies to someone who lays claim to an idea, like a song’s structure and lyrics, that did not originate with them.

With filesharing, there is no theft, plain and simple. The only thing that goes missing is potential profit, but if you’re going to put people in jail for being discriminating in the way they spend their money, then you have to arrest or fine me every time I walk by a restaurant without going in and eating.

Again, you are not buying the rights to disseminate the material, but only to use the material. Archival copies can be made under what is termed “fair use” You could also make the argument making a copy and giving to a friend may also be fair use. Using file sharing software is definitely not fair use.

 

[JoshR]

I asked priest in confession today he said if its copyrighted then its stealing.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

I asked priest in confession today he said if its copyrighted then its stealing.

…its not always stealing.