Husband copied a purchased CD and asked me to print label

[graceandglory]

In legal parlance, that’s called “aiding and abetting.” Unfortunately, you become part of the sin by helping your husband commit it. He might take your protests more seriously if you didn’t help him with it. But then again, he might not.

Isn’t one of the points of Christian Marriage to help one another get to heaven? Don’t forget to be angry but sin not. It’s not gonna help the matter any if you go about it all contentious. (Not saying that you are, just saying…)

 

[marypar]

In legal parlance, that’s called “aiding and abetting.” Unfortunately, you become part of the sin by helping your husband commit it. He might take your protests more seriously if you didn’t help him with it. But then again, he might not.

So does that mean it needs to be confessed? And would it be venial? As of now, he didn’t ask me for the labels (I have them in my pocketbook). Should I just throw them out? (I know this is silly). The thing is I did this for him a couple of weeks ago and it didn’t phase me in the least - now does that need to be confessed too???

 

[SHW]

So if you write a book or produce a CD, you should only get paid once, whether 50 copies or 50 million copies are distributed?

A performer whose CD sells 20,000 copies should be paid the same as one whose CD sells a mililion copies?

An author should be paid the same whether 5 copies or 50,000 copies are sold?

And after one showing of the latest blockbuster movie, all the other showings should be free?

No, I am not saying this. But, their pay scale is out of sync with real people in the real world who have to actually continue to do work in order to continue to be paid. I think the extreme differences in compensation for “entertainment” versus (let’s say) “plumber” or “landscaper” when comparing actual hours worked is unjust.

 

[graceandglory]

No, I am not saying this. But, their pay scale is out of sync with real people in the real world who have to actually continue to do work in order to continue to be paid. I think the extreme differences in compensation for “entertainment” versus (let’s say) “plumber” or “landscaper” when comparing actual hours worked is unjust.

Sure, you can feel that way. We have a free enterprise economy in our country. Stealing from the rich to give to the poor is Communist.

A performer spends 40 hours a week or more, and it’s exhausting business. They may or may not have one concert per week or month… They are still working, you just don’t see it.

 

[OnFire4Christ]

Look, I know about enabling and all that but in this particular situation making the labels didn’t help to copy the cd’s (I’m only looking at what the young lady did- whether or not if the copying was wrong which is apparently questionable between all of us-- I think it is, but whatever) and last I checked- correct me if I’m wrong, please- making labels isn’t illegal or a “questionable act”. If you were in a situation where your husband said to you that he would NOT copy the CD’s UNLESS you agreed to make the labels for him, lyrics or whatever- and you did-- then I would consider you an accomplice to his “transgression”. However, the way you described it- that was not the case. The fact that you made labels did not affect the copying of the cd’s (which is, in essence, the only problem I find here) because they were made after the fact, right? I mean, if they weren’t then please let me know- It might change my opinion. SOOOOO… as you can probably gather by now, I do NOT believe you have sinned.
As for confessing it to a priest, I recommend that you actually DO talk to him about it, not as a confession for reasons stated above, but to seek his opinion, maybe he can actually clarify for you when your involvement in a situation - even such as small as this- makes you responsible and give you examples as to when it’s imperative to stick to your guns about something. I mean, whats the worst that’ll happen? He’d tell you that you’re wasting his time, but I doubt that . So I’d talk to him and I’m willing to bet that he will understand your situation perfectly. Good luck, update us! I’m interested!

 

[SaltySirena]

The fact that you made labels did not affect the copying of the cd’s (which is, in essence, the only problem I find here) because they were made after the fact, right?

So then, do you believe it is unjust when people are charged with participating in a crime as an “accessory after the fact?”

Music piracy may be a minor crime, but it is still a crime.

To the OP, if what marypar says is true, then I guess there is no need to confess it. Have not looked that up in the CCC myself. It might still be a good idea to just ask a priest for moral guidance on the issue, for future reference, though.

 

[lobster]

Not sure how it works for music CD’s since you don’t sign an end user license agreement as you do with software. With software you are bound by you having given your word that you agree to the terms of the license. With music CD’s I imagine their is a law of some sort that applies to all CD’s that have music on them. I don’t see the difference between if I made my own recording of me playing the piano and sold it to my buddy who made a bunch of additional copies for his friends and someone who buys a commercial recording and makes a bunch of copies for his buddies. Possibly the law would indicate that if the music is “copyrighted” then its regulations apply to it. A person could theoretically make a CD and copyright it, but wish to allow others to make all the copies they want. They still couldn’t, because the law says they can’t. This is because one doesn’t sign an end user license agreement for music CDs.

 

[SHW]

Sure, you can feel that way. We have a free enterprise economy in our country. Stealing from the rich to give to the poor is Communist.

A performer spends 40 hours a week or more, and it’s exhausting business. They may or may not have one concert per week or month… They are still working, you just don’t see it.

A “free enterprise” economy does not mean a “just” economy. “Capitalism” does not necessarily mean “just.” This is one of the reasons it is so difficult for a rich man to enter into heaven. (Matthew 19:23)

I was in the music business at one time so I “saw” it first hand. I have family members who are still in the music business.

Radio commentators such as Rush Limbaugh lament about the amount of taxes that they have to pay. Their opinion is that they should get to keep all the money that they make, after all, they earned it. Their opinion is that if others want more money, then they should get jobs that pay more money. But, there aren’t that many jobs that pay large salaries so persons who do make more money should pay more tax money. It is a matter of justice.

Let’s say that all persons need $12,000 a year in order to pay their basic survival bills, rent, etc., and taxes on that amount and for public transportation; however, there is very little money left over for discretionary items such as owning their own home, a vehicle, or entertainment. Another person makes $120,000 per year so he has $75,000 left over after the $32,000 for taxes is taken out which can then be used for discretionary items and this money can be used for a house, car, entertainment, etc. The amount of taxes paid is not the same, but it is just. The more money you make, the more responsibility you have. (Luke 12:48) This is not communism. God owns “it” all. We only get to borrow “it” for awhile.

 

[OnFire4Christ]

So then, do you believe it is unjust when people are charged with participating in a crime as an “accessory after the fact?”

Music piracy may be a minor crime, but it is still a crime.
.

Okay, you make a great point.
However, there is a little misinterpretation…

(First off, if you read my whole comment you’ll notice that I do agree that piracy IS a crime, there was no need to clarify that for me, thanks.)

But about the “accessory after the fact” thing, by definition it’s someone who receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender to hinder, or prevent his apprehension, trial, or punishment after the fact
That’s not what she was doing. I know there is a thin blurry line as to whether or not she can be considered an “accessory after the fact” because in no way was she trying to hinder or prevent his “apprehension” or helping him get away with it.

If anything, I would relate her involvement to that of someone “identifying the bodies” in a murder case.

 

[chaz0426]

To buy a CD and then burn a copy of it for someone else is piracy and is stealing and is very illegal.

Careful on claiming it is “stealing” it is not the same thing. Stealing what? Money? Can you prove such profits have been lost? No.

On a moral grounds and in some scenarios it can be considered equal to theft but it is not the same thing. Theft involves depriving an entity access of certain property. If I stole your car, you no longer have access to it, thus it is defined as theft. If I copied your car you still have access to it and probably wouldn’t even notice. Now someone can claim the car maker lost money because the car was copied rather than bought but you can also claim the same if someone constantly kept borrowing the car for a long period of time rather than buying a car. They aren’t paying the car company or anyone to “borrow” anything so they could be losing money.

When it gets to digital media it is less clear since no one is being deprived access to anything as they still have the copy and it’s very difficult to prove money was “stolen” by the act.

It gets down to rights to copy hence “copyright”. Not theft.

Most of the pig players in copyright want the public to equate it to stealing and keep drilling it into their heads but if anyone dares to do some investigation it’s not the same thing.

 

[chaz0426]

A “free enterprise” economy does not mean a “just” economy. “Capitalism” does not necessarily mean “just.” This is one of the reasons it is so difficult for a rich man to enter into heaven. (Matthew 19:23)

I was in the music business at one time so I “saw” it first hand. I have family members who are still in the music business.

Radio commentators such as Rush Limbaugh lament about the amount of taxes that they have to pay. Their opinion is that they should get to keep all the money that they make, after all, they earned it. Their opinion is that if others want more money, then they should get jobs that pay more money. But, there aren’t that many jobs that pay large salaries so persons who do make more money should pay more tax money. It is a matter of justice.

Let’s say that all persons need $12,000 a year in order to pay their basic survival bills, rent, etc., and taxes on that amount and for public transportation; however, there is very little money left over for discretionary items such as owning their own home, a vehicle, or entertainment. Another person makes $120,000 per year so he has $75,000 left over after the $32,000 for taxes is taken out which can then be used for discretionary items and this money can be used for a house, car, entertainment, etc. The amount of taxes paid is not the same, but it is just. The more money you make, the more responsibility you have. (Luke 12:48) This is not communism. God owns “it” all. We only get to borrow “it” for awhile.

I agree with you for the most part as that is a huge political debate but then the question comes with the taxes. A lot of those taxes are used to pay for poor people and welfare. Ok seems morally right. But a lot of those people depend on such welfare and live on it alone to stay poor enough to stay on it. So in a sense the hard working rich could be considered to be paying the poor to “not work”. I believe the whole purpose of such is to aid the poor to get jobs and become financially sufficient and there’s nothing wrong with that. In actuality many people that are poor just use that as an income and instead do nothing. Someone can be poor and still lazy.

The poor in America or what is considered poor is not poor in other countries. Many of the “poor” here still have food to eat and water to drink and a roof over their head and become complacent and lazy on that standard of living and don’t work where as merely having such is considered a luxury in other 3rd world countries.

It’d be moral for such person to use the welfer they have to find other jobs and become financially secure, as that is what is the purpose. But many don’t and instead the liberal philosophy is the keep throwing more and more money at them by raising taxes which hurt the hardworking rich the most and expecting it will change the habits of the poor but it doesn’t.

I’d be all for that if the tax dollars were spent wisely but I briefly stood on obama’s fiscal principal (after being conservative most of my life) and I don’t see any evidence of it being wisely spent.

I see the same homeless people often day after day on my way to work sitting out there asking for money. I do see a few people giving them a few bucks here and there and that’s nice. But where’s the change? A year from now they are still out there doing the same thing where if they learned how to manage their donations they could be pulling in their own income through a job and doing other things rather than standing out there asking cars for money.

Despite the economy, minimum wage jobs are always hiring. Whether at Mcdonalds or else where. Just be a little assertive and you’ll find it.

I’m all for helping the poor and giving them money in times of need, but I’m not all for them depending on it.

I really want to go and help them and give them some money too and I often do if I have any reason to suspect that they spend it wisely even if for food to eat. However for most I often pause because I ask, where is it going to help them?

For all I know they could spend it on drugs, beer, and what not but not on what really matters.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

That is why I am very split between conservative and liberal fiscal policy.

 

[pyro_alchemist]

Not all crimes against the state are crimes against God. Not saying that is the case here but just putting in my 2 cents worth. *BTW I once copied some music of dubious legality and placed it on a CD for the enjoyment of folks in a Catholic nursing home. I never felt the need to bring that up in the confessional. *

 

[SHW]

It’d be moral for such person to use the welfer they have to find other jobs and become financially secure, as that is what is the purpose. But many don’t and instead the liberal philosophy is the keep throwing more and more money at them by raising taxes which hurt the hardworking rich the most and expecting it will change the habits of the poor but it doesn’t.

The problem is that there aren’t “other” jobs available that “pay more.” Many people are “underemployed.” (They cannot find high-paying jobs that some others have found in their same profession so they have to take low-paying jobs in a different profession in order to put food on the table.)

Minimum wage is $7.25 per hour (under certain conditions only, depends on how many employees) or lower. That comes to $15,080 per year if you get to work 40 hours per week for 52 weeks each year, but most minimum wage jobs are also not 40 hours per week. More jobs in the USA are like the “fast food type” rather than the “accountant type” and so these do not pay well. When minimum wages rise, so does the price of everything else so they do not make any real gain.

I see the same homeless people often day after day on my way to work sitting out there asking for money. I do see a few people giving them a few bucks here and there and that’s nice. But where’s the change? A year from now they are still out there doing the same thing where if they learned how to manage their donations they could be pulling in their own income through a job and doing other things rather than standing out there asking cars for money.

Most homeless people are ill, either mentally or physically. There are lazy persons, of course, and these should not eat if they do not work. (2 Thessalonians 3:10 “For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.”)

Despite the economy, minimum wage jobs are always hiring. Whether at Mcdonalds or else where. Just be a little assertive and you’ll find it.

These jobs provide for the “bare minimum” only.

I’m all for helping the poor and giving them money in times of need, but I’m not all for them depending on it.

I am not in favor of a welfare system either, but the compensation “system” in the USA is not just. There should be “just” wages for all honorable work well done so that all hard workers can live a life that rewards them for their efforts. (Luke 10:7)

I also do not think that unwed mothers and drug addicts, etc. should get compensation for their poor choices. And, if they knew that the government was not going to bail them out, perhaps they would make other choices. They would also probably find out that their families are not too keen on bailing them out either.

 

[graceandglory]

SHW:
I also do not think that unwed mothers and drug addicts, etc. should get compensation for their poor choices. .

Interesting, St. James thought otherwise.

***Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress *** James 1:27

You have absolutely no idea why there is not a father.

 

[Seatuck]

So does that mean it needs to be confessed? And would it be venial? As of now, he didn’t ask me for the labels (I have them in my pocketbook). Should I just throw them out? (I know this is silly). The thing is I did this for him a couple of weeks ago and it didn’t phase me in the least - now does that need to be confessed too???

So , let me understand this. You took labels that belong to your work? Is that allowed or was it theft?

 

[marypar]

Hi Seatuck,
Actually a few months ago I asked my boss if I could do personal things like printing reading material from the internet and he specifically gave me permission to print what I want and “never to worry about it.” He looked at it as being a perk since we admins don’t get much at big corporations (where I work). Being scrupulous I cover all the bases.

And just an update, I denied giving my husband the labels and am tossing them in the garbage.

I will bring up the fact that I did other labels a few months ago for him and never confessed it. It didn’t bother me then, don’t know what gives now. I guess I will bring it up at my next confession.

 

[SHW]

Interesting, St. James thought otherwise.

***Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress *** James 1:27

You have absolutely no idea why there is not a father.

True widows (those who have no family) who cannot support themselves due to illness or old age are to be looked after. Orphans have no parents and also should be looked after.

1 Timothy 5:8
But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

** But, able-bodied people who are irresponsible should not be getting a handout. They need to face the consequences of their own actions and provide for their own children by working.** Sex is for marriage, period.

2 Thessalonians 3:10
For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.

How are we to treat immoral persons?

2 Thessalonians 3:6
But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us…13 But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary in doing good. 14 And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

1 Corinthians 5:11
But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.

 

[Booter]

Whats the difference b/t buying one cd and having your brother, sister, or spouse borrow it, giving it back and forth every few days, and buying one cd and copying it? To me it’s similar. I have 3 older brothers and i remember when we were younger would loved the wwf. When the cd came out with the wwf theme songs we each wanted to have our own cd. I remember thinking how ridiculous it was that 4 boys in the same house bought 4 different cd’s, maybe we shoulda learned to share one, but i think we could’ve bought one and burned it and done nothing wrong, morally speaking, if not legally.