Illicit duplication of copyrighted DVDs and CDs

[steve93]

Years ago you could copy whatever you wanted. Look it up. Then the music industry threw a toddler fit fit and got the law changed.
The future belongs to the bold who are not told what to do. Look at China, for instance, they copy whatever they want.

 

[Kaliaa]

If you copy media CDs, DVDs etc and hand it to someone else it is against the law and it is a sin. It’s called piracy for a reason. Selling versus giving freely whether it is one copy to a friend or 500 copies to a convention is irrelevant. Now the magnitude of the sin is probably different, but both are sin. You are taking something that does not belong to you. When you purchase these items you are not buying the content but the right to use the content… ie read a book, listen to a CD. You do NOT have the right to copy it and give it to someone else.

People have been rationalizing why this is okay for years and it all boils down to I don’t want to have to pay for it. Well, when you don’t want to pay for it and instead want to get it for nothing, you are taking money out of the pocket of the person who created and owns it. That is stealing and it is a sin. All this stealing has caused the artists and companies that support them to try all manner of ways to prevent it because those who do it are stealing. Hence it costs those who actually pay for it more money because of the pirates.

Just because you can copy doesn’t mean you should nor that it is okay and it doesn’t matter if is was years ago or today.

 

[Tim_D]

If the law is just and we should obey it then it would be sinful to do so.

Are you saying, then, that a rolling stop at a stop sign is a sin? Are going on red when there isn’t a car in sight? How about going over the speed limit, even 1 mph?

I seriously doubt that someone who makes a copy of Peter Pan for their niece or nephew is in grave danger of the loss of grace.

 

[Tim_D]

Selling versus giving freely whether it is one copy to a friend or 500 copies to a convention is irrelevant.

Forget about selling, then. If I buy a book, CD, dvd, magazine or whatever and loan it to you to enjoy, are you not, in fact, “stealing” the content without compensating the creator?

 

[Kaliaa]

In your example, when you loan something do you both have a copy? Can you both use it at the same time in different locations? No you cannot. It’s not the same thing.

 

[Tim_D]

In your example, when you loan something do you both have a copy? Can you both use it at the same time in different locations? No you cannot. It’s not the same thing.

What if I ripped the CD to my computer. It’s mine and I have the right to do it. If I then loan you the CD, is *that *stealing?

 

[Tim_D]

In your example, when you loan something do you both have a copy? Can you both use it at the same time in different locations? No you cannot. It’s not the same thing.

Besides, certainly its the same thing. You are consuming the media without paying the creator for it. It doesn’t matter if we both can’t read or listen to it at the same time. If you didn’t pay for it and still listen/read it, then according to your reasoning, you are stealing.

 

[Bonnie]

Are you saying, then, that a rolling stop at a stop sign is a sin?

If you do it on purpose, yes. Yesterday a school bus driver ignored a yield sign & was hit by a semi. Fortunately, none of the students were too badly hurt, tho a couple had to be taken to the hospital.

I know an author who had one of his books stolen by a wanna-be author. The wanna-be posted the novel - word for word - on-line under his own name. When Chuck found out he took legal action. Some might say that Chuck didn’t lose any money because the people who read it on-line might not have bought the book from him anyway, but it’s still theft.

 

[SimpleRosarian]

If you didn’t pay for it and still listen/read it, then according to your reasoning, you are stealing.

Wrong. Loaning CDs or books or movies is not the same thing as loaning a blanket.

Look it, stealing is taking someone else’s property without their permission.

You do not own the songs on a CD. You own the right to a “license” that permits you to listen to them. When you give those songs to someone else who has NOT purchased that right, then they are stealing them and you an accomplice. Pointing out scenarios where “but then I couldn’t …” is assumed does not magically make this not stealing.

These are the problems:

(1) Most people do this so often, they think it’s normal, so they don’t care.
(2) People are generally not honest.
(3) People rightfully point out that there are injustices in how massive corporations want to extract every penny of profit out of their products.
(4) The actual amount stolen is incredibly negligible.

But is it stealing? Yes. Should Catholics do it? No. If you want to hear music, buy it. If you can’t afford it, look for it on Amazon Prime. If it ain’t there, don’t listen to it. It’s real simple.

 

[Tim_D]

If you do it on purpose, yes. Yesterday a school bus driver ignored a yield sign & was hit by a semi. Fortunately, none of the students were too badly hurt, tho a couple had to be taken to the hospital.

I meant a rolling stop when there is no one around.

And are you suggesting that the bus driver, who very well may have made a mistake, is guilty of sin for the accident? Does every person involved in a wreck and was in the wrong need confession?

 

[pensmama87]

Wrong. Loaning CDs or books or movies is not the same thing as loaning a blanket.

Look it, stealing is taking someone else’s property without their permission.

You do not own the songs on a CD. You own the right to a “license” that permits you to listen to them. When you give those songs to someone else who has NOT purchased that right, then they are stealing them and you an accomplice. Pointing out scenarios where “but then I couldn’t …” is assumed does not magically make this not stealing.

These are the problems:

(1) Most people do this so often, they think it’s normal, so they don’t care.
(2) People are generally not honest.
(3) People rightfully point out that there are injustices in how massive corporations want to extract every penny of profit out of their products.
(4) The actual amount stolen is incredibly negligible.

But is it stealing? Yes. Should Catholics do it? No. If you want to hear music, buy it. If you can’t afford it, look for it on Amazon Prime. If it ain’t there, don’t listen to it. It’s real simple.

What about libraries?

 

[SimpleRosarian]

I seriously doubt that someone who makes a copy of Peter Pan for their niece or nephew is in grave danger of the loss of grace.

The fact that something is sinful doesn’t mean a person losses the state of grace.

You point to these scenarios in real life as if the context somehow makes the act something other than it what it is. It’s still stealing. It’s still disobedience to legitimate authority, in the case of your road examples.

None of that means these are mortally sinful.

It just means it’s either venially sinful or the result of an imperfection and, frankly, being effeminate, wherein one can’t pursue something difficult because doing the opposite is too pleasurable.

 

[SimpleRosarian]

What about libraries?

If a particular owner of a material intends for their product to be available for lending in the case of libraries, then of course this is not stealing.

But if that same owner does NOT intend for private individuals to lend out things, then it is stealing.

The fact that I own a book doesn’t mean I own the material IN the book and that I can do whatever I want with it. I can’t release the same material in my own book and say, “Yeah, but I bought the book.” No, I own the physical copy of someone’s work along with the right to read it. Someone else doesn’t acquire that right because I hand them the book. The right is created by the state in accordance with its laws.

 

[joeybaggz]

What about libraries?

As an author and publisher, the library purchased my book. It was a legal sale for which I have been compensated honestly. I know the library will lend the book, and by selling it to the library, I agree to that condition. No one stole anything, not the library, and not the people who borrow it and read it.

 

[Tim_D]

You do not own the songs on a CD. You own the right to a “license” that permits you to listen to them.

Really? I’ve bought many CDs through the years and never once was I required to accept a “license” that stipulates my rights and duties with said product. I never maintained that I owned the publishing but if I paid for it, then it is my CD and I can do with it whatever I wish.

When you give those songs to someone else who has NOT purchased that right, then they are stealing them and you an accomplice.

Please stipulate what was stolen and from whom? In legal jargon, “theft” (not “stealing”) is taking something that belongs to another or depriving their use of it. If I send an mp3 of Yesterday to someone through email, ripped from a CD that I bought, then who have I committed a theft against? And what exactly was the object of theft?

 

[Tim_D]

As an author and publisher, the library purchased my book. It was a legal sale for which I have been compensated honestly. I know the library will lend the book, and by selling it to the library, I agree to that condition. No one stole anything, not the library, and not the people who borrow it and read it.

Many libraries have books donated to them from private individuals. If the library loans out such a book without seeking the permission of the author or publisher, what then?

 

[edwest2]

What about libraries?

Ask a librarian. Libraries pay for/buy all the media they lend out.

Even the US Post Office cuts creators a break with their relatively inexpensive Media Mail.

Ed

 

[joeybaggz]

Many libraries have books donated to them from private individuals. If the library loans out such a book without seeking the permission of the author or publisher, what then?

Tim;

I would pretty much assume someone along the line purchased the book and has the right to donate it. I would not concern myself any further.

Also, a little bit of enlightenment. Today copyright law states that the rights to a creative work, be it written, sung, filmed, etc. belong to the copyright holder for the duration of his/her/its life and for seventy years after death (the estate owns the rights). Unless the copyright is renewed, the work then becomes a property of the “public domain”. At that point, anyone can copy or reproduce it. To know what they are, google “works in the public domain” you’ll find the list a long one.

To give an interesting example. I write on topics where I quote scripture. If I want to use any of the current bibles in existence, for example The New American Bible, I must get permission from the owner of the rights (the USCCB I believe) to quote from it since my works are for commercial purposes. However, the KJV and the Douay Rheims versions are in the public domain, so I can use them freely without seeking permission.

There also is something called “fair use” laws that allows the citation without compensation for purposes of critical review, academic usage, and other situations although only very limited material can be copied or reproduced. Sound hinky - yep, this is why the lawyers get the big money

Shalom

 

[exnihilo]

People have been rationalizing why this is okay for years and it all boils down to I don’t want to have to pay for it. Well, when you don’t want to pay for it and instead want to get it for nothing, you are taking money out of the pocket of the person who created and owns it.

It isn’t just an issue of not wanting to pay for it. Copyright can also mean a copyrighted item is not made available for sale. In an extreme example let’s say someone purchased all the copyrights for all Bibles. If they refused to produce more, and copying it is necessarily illegal, would you say it is just that they be able do so?

As for not wanting to pay for it are you aware that copyright laws grant an exception to songs sung at religious events. This is what prevents churches from having to pay every time a copyrighted song is sung. Is the Church being unjust by not paying song writers every time a song is sung?

Are you saying, then, that a rolling stop at a stop sign is a sin? Are going on red when there isn’t a car in sight? How about going over the speed limit, even 1 mph?

I seriously doubt that someone who makes a copy of Peter Pan for their niece or nephew is in grave danger of the loss of grace.

If the law is just and you should follow it then it is sin. Driving slightly above the speed limit or with the flow of traffic might not be a sin. It is safer to drive with the flow of traffic. And I think there is general recognition that the speed limit is a rough guide.

You do not own the songs on a CD. You own the right to a “license” that permits you to listen to them. When you give those songs to someone else who has NOT purchased that right, then they are stealing them and you an accomplice. Pointing out scenarios where “but then I couldn’t …” is assumed does not magically make this not stealing.

These are the problems:

(1) Most people do this so often, they think it’s normal, so they don’t care.
(2) People are generally not honest.
(3) People rightfully point out that there are injustices in how massive corporations want to extract every penny of profit out of their products.
(4) The actual amount stolen is incredibly negligible.

But is it stealing? Yes. Should Catholics do it? No. If you want to hear music, buy it. If you can’t afford it, look for it on Amazon Prime. If it ain’t there, don’t listen to it. It’s real simple.

You are right that with Intellectual Property (IP) you have a license. But violating that license doesn’t mean you are stealing. It just means you are ignoring the law that gives a monopoly to a particular person. The act does not in any way deprive the person of his property. You could at best say it deprives them of whatever they would sell the license for. But this still isn’t stealing since the person is not already in possession of this. You could say it deprives them of the exclusive right to completely control the property but the property in question is an idea. It isn’t a physical thing. Can someone own an idea? IP says as much but I’m not sure they can or that it is just to allow them to. For instance, would anyone think it just for a man to be able to own the question mark?

 

[Bonnie]

Even the US Post Office cuts creators a break with their relatively inexpensive Media Mail.

But Media Mail isn’t just for the creators of said media. I used to sell & often buy 2nd hand books & movies that are sent by Media Mail.

The difference between loaning, renting, buying, or selling a 2nd hand book, movie, or cd and COPYING that material is just that - copying. You’re not allowed to do that, especially if you’re giving or selling it to others. The gray area (in my opinion only) is when I borrow a movie from the library & copy it to my computer to watch later. It doesn’t go beyond me & often I will delete the dvd later. (One reason I do this is that dvds loans are only good for a week - sometimes I don’t have time to watch during that week.)

Technology has surged ahead of theology or moral law (don’t know what this falls under), so the Church has some catching up to do. In the meantime, we muddle along as best we can.