Is downloading music always sinful?

[FLCathMom]

Jesus told us to obey all civil authority. If the action is illegal, then you shouldn’t do it. The OP’s examples of rolling through a stop sign ,etc.- If you intentionally do something you know to be illegal, you have sinned, because Jesus told us to obey civil authority. The only time you would be allowed to disobey is if you were told to do or not do something that directly interferes with your practicing the Faith. So, Is downloading music always sinful? If it is illegal, then yes.

 

[StandUp4Truth]

Why the change in price to purchase the copywright.

Here is where you’re wrong, we are not purchasing the copywright when we buy a CD. We are purchasing the CD as a phsyical property and the recording companies allow us to “back up” the music contained on the CD in case anything should happen to it(not a backup to share with friends). If you owned the copywright, filmmakers would not have to contact the music industry and make big dollar deals to use their songs in movies - if they owned the copywright they could use it however they pleased.

If you were receiving the copywright(or even just lifetime access to the music), you would be paying a heck of a lot more for the CD. This is why you can buy CDs for different prices or even free depending on the demand for that physical property, they are not selling you rights to all the music contained on the CD in perpetuity, they are selling you a limited-life item that holds the music(like a book holds a story).

Consider concerts. A truly wonderful band might have tickets scalped at prices approaching $1000. But if the venue is outdoors someone a couple of blocks down might be able to enjoy the concert for free. Is this stealing?

Of course it’s not, but that’s a flimsy argument because:

1. a concert is a one-time event, not something you can listen to over and over again like an mp3 (unless you brought a recorder which is illegal) 2) the band knew that when they played in the outdoor venue it may be possible for others to hear without buying a ticket(an element of accepted risk), and 3) if everyone decided to sit outside and listen to the “free music”, the band wouldn’t be able to play there.

Does this mean that artists should plan on x number of people illegally downloading their music and use these calculations to raise CD prices? I hope not, because then a few people doing the right thing will have to pay more for those who are not - how is that morally just?

Another poster mentioned records out of production. Some recording companies still hold the copyrights (which, unlike patents never expire) but have no interest in producing the music. If I rip that music to an MP3 and then give it to family and friends, am I stealing? I already own a copy and in the case of an original LP from the 30s and 40s it may be worth quite a bit of money.

I agree that this is where it gets difficult, because there are some things you just can’t get anymore. However, distributing to “family and friends” is not as bad as putting it on P2P networks for people around the world. Is it a sin to make a copy for your bro even though the rules say you can only back it up for his personal use? Yes, but it would definitely be a teeny tiny little sin, like purposely cutting somebody off in traffic or drinking a can of your spouse’s soda.

The law surrounding music sharing is very murky. Do I personally feel downloading a song that was already purchased, but lost, damaged, or stolen is immoral. No. Do I personally believe the wholesale downloading of music for free is immoral. Yes. Are there gray areas in between. Yes. But like the eating of meat sacrificed to idols described in St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, it’s an area where each person has to make that choice of what they believe is sinful.

Hmm, I don’t think it’s really that murky, people just have a hard time accepting it because it’s just so easy to get free music right now. The law says that when you own a CD, it’s legal for you to copy it in case something should happen to it. It doesn’t say that you can make copies for family or friends, rip it to P2P networks, etc. It’s yours to listen to until the CD breaks, and if you backed up that CD you can continue to listen to the backup.

If you didn’t back that music up, it’s not your right to go download it from the web to keep forever. Look at DVD’s, if you go rent one and then come home and rip it, that’s illegal. If you didn’t get time to watch the movie while you rented it, that’s your fault - it doesn’t give you the right to go online and download it. Also consider how these things came to be available online, most of the time they are stolen. Morally we are not supposed to deal in stolen goods because it promotes that crime and our actions give others an occasion to sin. By downloading and uploading “shared” music you are dealing in stolen goods and passing them on to others(via the file sharing client).

While I agree nobody’s going to Hell for burning a CD of Ella Fitzgerald songs for their grandma, it is still a very slippery slope.

 

[Alphonsus_John]

For the record, I don’t download copyrighted music from P2P networks. I download from iTunes or indy labels or artists who just give away their stuff. I do make some mix discs and give them to friends and family, but as far as I’m aware that is well within the realm of “fair use” under copyright law.

Here is where you’re wrong, we are not purchasing the copywright when we buy a CD…

If you were receiving the copywright(or even just lifetime access to the music), you would be paying a heck of a lot more for the CD. This is why you can buy CDs for different prices or even free depending on the demand for that physical property, they are not selling you rights to all the music contained on the CD in perpetuity, they are selling you a limited-life item that holds the music(like a book holds a story).

Perhaps I misspoke. you don’t purchase the copyright. You purchase a license to the copyright. That’s why the recording industry says you are paying $20 for a CD, because they’re paying the artist $.05 every time one of his CDs are purchased. Royalties come from copyright licensing. The CD and jewel case cost next to nothing. That’s why pirates on the streets of NYC sell the CDs for $5.

Of course it’s not, but that’s a flimsy argument because:

1. a concert is a one-time event, not something you can listen to over and over again like an mp3 (unless you brought a recorder which is illegal) 2) the band knew that when they played in the outdoor venue it may be possible for others to hear without buying a ticket(an element of accepted risk), and 3) if everyone decided to sit outside and listen to the “free music”, the band wouldn’t be able to play there.

But if you’re not in the venue, you are free to record it. My point being that the cost of music can vary widely.

Does this mean that artists should plan on x number of people illegally downloading their music and use these calculations to raise CD prices? I hope not, because then a few people doing the right thing will have to pay more for those who are not - how is that morally just?

The recording industry has been operating immorally for decades. I can’t tell you how many times as a teenager I would spend my hard earned $$$ on an album just to discover there were two songs I liked and the rest were just junk. They’re called “anchor songs”.

Hmm, I don’t think it’s really that murky, people just have a hard time accepting it because it’s just so easy to get free music right now.

Actually it is. The concept of “fair use” has never been decided because it is so vague in copyright law and much of its interpretation is based on subsequent court rulings. Additionally, the RIAA is struggling with whether to keep up with their old business model or set up legit music downloading sites w/ unlimited downloads for a monthly subscription.

If you didn’t back that music up, it’s not your right to go download it from the web to keep forever. Look at DVD’s, if you go rent one and then come home and rip it, that’s illegal. If you didn’t get time to watch the movie while you rented it, that’s your fault - it doesn’t give you the right to go online and download it.

Your comparing apples and oranges. I won’t argue that renting a DVD and then ripping it is both illegal and immoral. But if you are buying a DVD, CD, etc., you have purchased the copyright license to that song. If you lose the song, you don’t lose your rights to the copyright license; you already purchased it.

 

[StandUp4Truth]

Dazzi,

I applaud you for trying to understand why this is wrong and actually doing something about it, especially since downloading is so tempting to young people.

I was in the same situation you were years ago, but I knew I had to re-examine my reasoning because I was no longer renting or buying CD’s, DVD’s, and software as often as I once did. I believed all the lies we tell ourselves when we are benefitting from something sinful(it doesn’t hurt anyone, everybody’s doing it, etc). Deep down inside, you still know that it’s wrong, which is why you keep having to justify it to yourself.

As for your questions, here’s some quick answers:

Radio stations are where artists advertise new songs with the hope of selling albums. It’s legal to sit by your cassete deck/radio pressing record when your favorite songs come on because it takes more time than it’s worth and the quality isn’t as good as a CD. When you download music illegally online you get what you want when you want it, the convenience of owning every CD without having to pay anything for it.

Recording movies and shows on TV is legal, but going online to download a movie or show illegally is not the same. Once again, you’re getting access to whatever you want to watch when it is convenient for you, without paying anything for it. When you buy a DVD, you buy the right to view that movie or show whenever you want for as long as the disc lasts. Watching a movie on TV includes watching commercials which make money for the TV station, that’s how they can afford to bring you that movie.

Also, illegal downloading allows you to bypass the ratings system that protect young people from seeing things before they’re old enough, and this provides a tempting occasion for sin. Why do you think pornography is such a problem in our society? People can download whatever they want at the push of a button without having to go out in public and prove their age or subject themselves to public scrutiny. Worse yet, they can access content that is illegal in our society, the darkest things that tear at people’s souls until they become monsters(pedophiles, rapists, serial killers, etc.)

Limewire is an anonymous network for illegally downloading and uploading media, not a circle of “friends”. When your real life friend gives you expensive software, he is transferring ownership of it to you. This means he can no longer use it himself and now you are using it in his place(there’s still only one copy for one user). When a Limewire member uploads the product they purchased, or in most cases stole, they continue to use that product while allowing thousands of others to also use it. There is no transfer of ownership and now one copy is being used by thousands of people, many of which would have purchased the media themselves if not for the download - that’s not sharing, that’s stealing!

Copywright laws are in place to protect companies and individuals who make products, so that other people can’t use their product without reimbursement. Copywrights protect the owner’s right to make a profit off of their product, which is why people can be sued for illegally downloading.

If a shop is selling a product for a marked down price, this is not a violation of copywright because the company has already been paid for their products by the shop. If the shop can sell it to you for a good price, they’ll make a profit. If not, they’ll take a loss. The company is still producing the products, and if you want one, they’ll make it for you at a price. This supply and demand, the basis of our global economy.

And no, you’re not right!

If you only get one thing out of my reply, it should be this:

Satan destroys souls by first gaining a toehold, then a foothold, and eventually building a stronghold.

In other words, you start by downloading some music, then some movies, and before you know it, you’re not buying anything because it’s all too easy to get for free. Who knows how this will affect you in other aspects of life? Maybe when you go to college you’ll photocopy expensive textbooks instead of buying them(I’m ashamed to say that I did), or perhaps your car will get in an accident and you’ll get estimates from shady mechanics so you benefit(I felt tempted, but resisted this one). Basically, sin begets sin, and all sin distances us from God’s love and makes us vulnerable to Satan.

Fortunately, it’s within our power to stop the Devil, but we have to begin by stopping ourselves.

 

[StandUp4Truth]

For the record, I don’t download copyrighted music from P2P networks.

I’m sorry if my post sounded accusatory, it’s hard for me to argue something without generalizing and I’m trying to work on that. I didn’t mean any offense by it.
It sounds as though you’re doing better than I did, for a few years I downloaded stuff illegally through P2P networks before I forced myself to re-evaluate my views on the issue.

That’s why the recording industry says you are paying $20 for a CD, because they’re paying the artist $.05 every time one of his CDs are purchased. Royalties come from copyright licensing. The CD and jewel case cost next to nothing.

While I agree with what you’re saying here, I don’t think it’s right to see the transaction this way because some people may get the wrong idea and think, “It’s no big deal, CDs cost the industry $.05!” ← Not saying you feel this way, I’m just worried about how others may interpret this.

But if you’re not in the venue, you are free to record it. My point being that the cost of music can vary widely.

True, but if you’re not in the venue and you care enough to record the performance, you probably should have bought a ticket to the show. Here I would say you’re talking about “apples and oranges” because with concert tickets you pay for the experience of being in the middle of the action and seeing the performer in person, not just the music.

The recording industry has been operating immorally for decades.

I completely agree that the music industry has been fleecing people, and I definitely bought my share of lousy CD’s before I got mad and started downloading. Your statement reminds me of a Bible verse:Matthew 22:21 - “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

Was the Roman Empire immoral, unjust, and downright evil? Yes! Did the people think the Empire deserved their hard earned money? No! Would the taxes of the early Christians one day be used to persecute them? Absolutely, but Jesus knew that they should still pay it because it was the right thing to do. Jesus shows us the need to be upright and moral in all our transactions, regardless of who it is we’re dealing with.

Actually it is. The concept of “fair use” has never been decided because it is so vague in copyright law and much of its interpretation is based on subsequent court rulings. Additionally, the RIAA is struggling with whether to keep up with their old business model or set up legit music downloading sites w/ unlimited downloads for a monthly subscription.

I don’t agree, the overall morality surrounding illegally downloading media is clear to most people. It’s only when we start using legalese to try and justify theft that it gets confusing. The rule with illegal downloading and all forms of stealing is that if you didn’t pay for it, you shouldn’t have it.

If the RIAA decides to offer lifetime downloads of music, then the agreement between the buyer and seller will have changed. Right now the agreement is that if you own the CD you can back it up to protect the contents, you’re not supposed to share that back up with others. If, like the original poster, you did not make a backup copy, you’re expected to go purchase another CD. This is the agreement you entered into when you bought the CD, and it’s on your personal honor to uphold it.

Not that the change you mentioned will ever stop illegal downloads, since free is still better than cheap.

Your comparing apples and oranges. I won’t argue that renting a DVD and then ripping it is both illegal and immoral. But if you are buying a DVD, CD, etc., you have purchased the copyright license to that song. If you lose the song, you don’t lose your rights to the copyright license; you already purchased it.

So if you rent a DVD and don’t get a chance to watch it, then go online and download it for viewing, would you consider that okay? I think it all has to do with the conditions of the agreement that you entered into. If you go buy a DVD or CD, you know that you are only allowed to back it up in case something may happen to it. If you fail to do this and you lose the disc(and they know that most people won’t back them up) you don’t have the right to go download the songs as mp3s.

If the licensing agreement you entered into allowed you rights to the content for the rest of your life, I guarantee that the cost of CD’s would be much higher. CD’s and DVD’s are fragile, and the prices are set knowing full well that many people will purchase multiple copies of the same ones in their lifetime(my niece is on her third copy of Aladdin). We’re lucky that the agreement allows us to backup the media at all, but downloading them online because you failed to do so is morally wrong.

 

[jemfinch]

here’s the reference you requested: eff.org/IP/P2P/riaa-v-thepeople.php

you will find links to pdfs of the legal briefs for too many cases to list in 500 words or less.

all it took was simply googling “RIAA Lawsuits”

And if you read that, you’ll see that it supports exactly what I’m claiming: that the law-breaking happens only when someone shares music (i.e., distributes copyrighted content without a license to do so) and not when someone downloads music.

Jeremy

 

[JesusSaves17]

is it illegal/unethical to share music with a neighbor? Say your neighbor buys a CD at a store, and puts the music onto his computer and then you have him burn you the CD or even you hook up your MP3 player and take the 2 or 3 songs you like. Is this still wrong? I don’t do it, because I fear it’s wrong, but I also don’t want to spend dollar after dollar on songs that my friend has. (I do use the 99 cents per song for the songs I do buy).

 

[sprout]

And if you read that, you’ll see that it supports exactly what I’m claiming: that the law-breaking happens only when someone shares music (i.e., distributes copyrighted content without a license to do so) and not when someone downloads music.

Jeremy

Jeremy where are you reading that “the law-breaking happens ONLY when someone shares music”? are you claiming that it is only the “uploading” of music that is illegal?

Did you actually read any of the Court Briefs? for example, in Sony Music Entertainment Inc vs. Does 1 - 40
eff.org/IP/P2P/RIAA_v_ThePeople/JohnDoe/20040727_Sony_Opinion.pdf

In this case, plaintiffs – seventeen record companies – sued forty unidentified “Doe” defendants for copyright infringement, alleging that defendants illegally downloaded and distributed plaintiffs’ copyrighted or exclusively licensed songs from the Internet, using a “peer to peer” file copying network. Plaintiffs served a subpoena on non-party Internet service provider Cablevision Systems Corporation (“Cablevision”), seeking to obtain defendants’ identities.

 

[StandUp4Truth]

is it illegal/unethical to share music with a neighbor? Say your neighbor buys a CD at a store, and puts the music onto his computer and then you have him burn you the CD or even you hook up your MP3 player and take the 2 or 3 songs you like. Is this still wrong? I don’t do it, because I fear it’s wrong, but I also don’t want to spend dollar after dollar on songs that my friend has. (I do use the 99 cents per song for the songs I do buy).

Hey JesusSaves17, this is a really great question because it shows the varying degrees of sinfulness that this issue involves.

Will you go to Hell for what you describe above? I hope not, but nobody on Earth can tell you with absolute certainty either way.

If you take a strict interpretation of the agreement your friend entered into when buying his CD(which is the way I’m leaning), then the copy he made for you would be considered immoral because he is violating his end of the agreement by copying it for your personal use. I would rather err on the side of caution when it comes to things like this because it’s not like you need those songs. $.99 isn’t too much to pay if you love a song, and if you don’t need it anyway(it’s not like a loaf of bread to a starving person), why would you risk sinning for it?

Also, if it starts with a few songs or one CD, it almost always ends up with giant filesharing networks, downloading free movies and video games(I got started that very same way).

Some better solutions would be to borrow CDs from your neighbor if you absolutely can’t afford to go out and buy the music. You could also record the song you want off of the radio using a cassette. That’s what we had to do in the early days of CDs before the copying technology was so cheap. Back then you couldn’t buy a boombox that would let you record from the CD to a cassette, and CD-RW drives in computers were too expensive. Then it wasn’t a big deal to buy the same CD as your friend, neighbor, or even a sibling. It was just accepted that if you really wanted it, you had to save up and get your own copy.

It’s only because it’s so easy to make all those little copies that we have a hard time stopping ourselves.

 

[JesusSaves17]

Hey JesusSaves17, this is a really great question because it shows the varying degrees of sinfulness that this issue involves.

Will you go to Hell for what you describe above? I hope not, but nobody on Earth can tell you with absolute certainty either way.

If you take a strict interpretation of the agreement your friend entered into when buying his CD(which is the way I’m leaning), then the copy he made for you would be considered immoral because he is violating his end of the agreement by copying it for your personal use. I would rather err on the side of caution when it comes to things like this because it’s not like you need those songs. $.99 isn’t too much to pay if you love a song, and if you don’t need it anyway(it’s not like a loaf of bread to a starving person), why would you risk sinning for it?

Also, if it starts with a few songs or one CD, it almost always ends up with giant filesharing networks, downloading free movies and video games(I got started that very same way).

Some better solutions would be to borrow CDs from your neighbor if you absolutely can’t afford to go out and buy the music. You could also record the song you want off of the radio using a cassette. That’s what we had to do in the early days of CDs before the copying technology was so cheap. Back then you couldn’t buy a boombox that would let you record from the CD to a cassette, and CD-RW drives in computers were too expensive. Then it wasn’t a big deal to buy the same CD as your friend, neighbor, or even a sibling. It was just accepted that if you really wanted it, you had to save up and get your own copy.

It’s only because it’s so easy to make all those little copies that we have a hard time stopping ourselves.

funny you should say that, because even with all the new technology, I still do record songs off the radio onto cassette every once in a while. I used to be so unscrupulous (is that a word) back when i was like 13, I downloaded probably 100-200 songs for free and did not even think it was wrong/sin). Now, I’m scared to even rip one song from my friend’s computer in fear of sinning! My oh my. I draw the line at siblings though, siblings should be allowed to buy one CD and share it.

 

[jemfinch]

-]

Did you actually read any of the Court Briefs?

Did you? Look at the very paragraph of the brief you quoted:

In this case, plaintiffs – seventeen record companies – sued forty unidentified “Doe” defendants for copyright infringement, alleging that defendants illegally downloaded and distributed plaintiffs’ copyrighted or exclusively licensed songs from the Internet, using a “peer to peer” file copying network.

They mention downloading only to emphasize the were, without a license, distributing copyrighted material.

Repeat after me, copyright does not restrict use. It only restricts reproduction and distribution. The crime is not in the downloading. The crime is not in the listening. The crime is in the distributing. You will not find a single brief or a single court case filed against a person who merely downloaded and did not distribute what he or she downloaded.

That’s why the EFF’s amicus briefs are (and I quote from their page you linked) “to dismiss distribution claim.” Dismissing the distribution claim is sufficient to throw out the case, since that’s what the case is based on./-]

Though the brief you referenced didn’t convince me, I looked at the amicus briefs filed by the EFF and realized that I was wrong: downloading music constitutes unauthorized reproduction of the copyrighted material and thus is illegal.

Sorry for misleading people in this thread, if I could easily change my posts, I would

Jeremy

 

[dazzi]

I thought that here where i am its only illegal to sell the downloaded stuff not to not download i am in australia could the law be different here??

 

[dazzi]

Thats what i think is stealing becauise you are making money of it.
But seriously these laws are all over the place most of them dont even make sense no one of us will know until we die if it was wrong etc.
How can one country do so and the other not. to god we are all one so why is it a sin to download a song in one countrty and not in the other they both equal the same gains and loses.
But what are the copyright laws in australia i thought its only illegal to sell the stuff you get.
and isnt the term Pirating mean selling the stuff at a cheaper price?
eg DVD= 20au he sells it for 5au.

 

[StandUp4Truth]

Thats what i think is stealing becauise you are making money of it.
But seriously these laws are all over the place most of them dont even make sense no one of us will know until we die if it was wrong etc.
How can one country do so and the other not. to god we are all one so why is it a sin to download a song in one countrty and not in the other they both equal the same gains and loses.
But what are the copyright laws in australia i thought its only illegal to sell the stuff you get.
and isnt the term Pirating mean selling the stuff at a cheaper price?
eg DVD= 20au he sells it for 5au.

Hmmm, I don’t know about Australia’s laws, but I know stealing when I see it, and downloading entertainment through P2P programs is stealing something you would normally have to go to a store and buy.

Yeah, there are equal laws that transcend all borders, they’re called the Ten Commandments. The seventh is “Thou shalt not steal”, and God is quite clear about the punishment for breaking His commandments.

The Catechism teaches us this about stealing:

2409 Even if it does not contradict the provisions of civil law, any form of unjustly taking and keeping the property of others is against the seventh commandment: thus, deliberate retention of goods lent or of objects lost; business fraud; paying unjust wages; forcing up prices by taking advantage of the ignorance or hardship of another.

So not only are you to stop stealing songs, you are not allowed to keep your ill gotten gains.

You can learn more about it here.

Why would you even risk the possibility of sin for something that you don’t need to survive? DVD’s, CD’s and software are a luxury, nobody needs them to live. Why would you want to risk eternal damnation for a luxury item? You wouldn’t be the first, many wealthy men have gone to Hell because they couldn’t let go of their riches or vices, but why would you even risk it?

Rid yourself of the stolen property, go confess your sins, then go forth and sin no more! You can do it!

 

[StandUp4Truth]

I used to be so unscrupulous (is that a word) back when i was like 13, I downloaded probably 100-200 songs for free and did not even think it was wrong/sin). Now, I’m scared to even rip one song from my friend’s computer in fear of sinning! My oh my. I draw the line at siblings though, siblings should be allowed to buy one CD and share it.

Congratulations, it sounds like you’ve grown a lot spiritually since that time!

I know I was the same way! I used to download music, movies, software, you name it - I had gigs of the stuff. One day I realized that I wasn’t going to the store to buy any CD’s, DVD’s, or software anymore and I had to accept the fact that I was actually stealing.

Now I want nothing to do with the stuff. It’s important to be firm when it comes to this because it starts out harmlessly enough before it spirals out of control and you wake up one day to realize that you’ve been stealing all this time.

 

[dazzi]

so if i were to go to canada and download songs of p2p it would still be a sin so why do i see people around here saying they do it in canada.
I should have a talk to my priest about this,
I doubt that many artists even care its more of the distributing company,
The law is that once you record something on tv you can only do so if you dont have the time to watch the show and afterwards the content must be destroyed.
this is the stupidest thing that i have heard who does that i wouldnt be suprised if more then 100 people in this world since vcr;s came out have done it otherwise they are stealing.
Let me ask you all who does this?
If you dont its stealing,
But who in the right mind would do this get a show watch it then push record for 2 hours and record nothing to get rid of it.
Yea right
I do know its a sin to not follow your countries law.
But what if its a law that does not make sense.
For one i do know that if they introduce the putting in chips in humans and if it werre to become a law i for one would not do it no matter what.

 

[Alphonsus_John]

I’m sorry if my post sounded accusatory, it’s hard for me to argue something without generalizing and I’m trying to work on that. I didn’t mean any offense by it.

I, like you downloaded lots of music on Napster and Kazaa (back in the day) mostly as a way to get back at the record companies who I felt screwed me out of a lot of money over the years

While I agree with what you’re saying here, I don’t think it’s right to see the transaction this way because some people may get the wrong idea and think, “It’s no big deal, CDs cost the industry $.05!” ← Not saying you feel this way, I’m just worried about how others may interpret this. …Your statement reminds me of a Bible verse:Matthew 22:21 - “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”…Was the Roman Empire immoral, unjust, and downright evil?

A few points.

1. I see your point on pricing and I do not believe that just because a product is inexpensive to makes theft ok. I just believe you already own the license and you are not stealing in the first place.
2. I do believe with the give to Caesar what is Caesar quote does not mean that one must submit willingly to whatever the government dictates, no matter how stupid. Jesus used it to slip throught the trap set by the Pharisees. One martyr, I believe, when ordered by a Roman magistrate to hand over the Church’s treasures, gave all the funds owned by the Church to the poor and brought the sick and crippled beggars into the court room and said, “here are the treasures of the church”. I don’t believe we are obligated to scrupulously follow every stupid and ill-thought law

I don’t agree, the overall morality surrounding illegally downloading media is clear to most people. It’s only when we start using legalese to try and justify theft that it gets confusing. The rule with illegal downloading and all forms of stealing is that if you didn’t pay for it, you shouldn’t have it.

I’m sorry, but I don’t agree. It’s clear when you talk about the wholsesale downloading of music. Beyond that, it’s murky and vague. Companies create extremely onerous End User License Agreements that in some cases, may violate federal and state law. Even when they’re not illegal, they’re ridiculous. (Esp. in software where to “comply” with the EULA you’re supposed to register your software before using it and then allow the company to modify or change it and have acess to your computer).

Sony’s EULA also restricts the user’s access to legal recourse, Bhattacharya said. “One provision in the License states that the user waives any right to seek judicial approval which may be needed to terminate the License. The License also forces the user to waive his or her right to a jury trial for any dispute that arises relating to the software or the License. Of course, it may be argued that this provision violates the U.S. Constitution as well as various state Constitutions.” eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1895259,00.asp

I believe in following the law. I believe that wholesale downloading of free music is illegal. I do not, however, believe we must follow every edict and whim of an immoral and greedy recording industry, esp. when they act extra-legally. I do not believe I am bound to ridiculous and possibly illegal terms in an EULA.

Your mileage may vary, however and I don’t want to lead you or anyone else into sin. If your conscience tells you any violation of your EULA is immoral, don’t do it.

More links:

eulahallofshame.com/
ecommercetimes.com/story/Duvasxp5Vg0NbS/EULA-What-Are-You-Signing-Away.xhtml

 

[dazzi]

Alphonsus_John i agree with you why should we follow a law that does not make sense i will follow every law that does make sense i for one know that i will never kill or hurt someone i just know it i wont do anything grafiti etc the worst i will end up doing is speeding.
But this copyright stuff is so all over the place especially since i found out that its stealing if you watch a taped film more then once or if you tape it while already watching it cmon??

 

[FLCathMom]

1. I do believe with the give to Caesar what is Caesar quote does not mean that one must submit willingly to whatever the government dictates, no matter how stupid. Jesus used it to slip throught the trap set by the Pharisees. One martyr, I believe, when ordered by a Roman magistrate to hand over the Church’s treasures, gave all the funds owned by the Church to the poor and brought the sick and crippled beggars into the court room and said, “here are the treasures of the church”. I don’t believe we are obligated to scrupulously follow every stupid and ill-thought law

What about Romans 13:1-2:

1Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

 

[Alphonsus_John]

What about Romans 13:1-2:

1Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

Romans is a tough one. In Paul’s time many new converts thought themselves complete free from secular laws and Paul was attempting to correct this. I’m not a theologian and I need to read deeper. In the medieval ages almost all people believed legitimate secular authority flowed from God into the king. Today, we find the concept of monarchies laughable and see no issue with lobbying the government for change. So I’m not sure.

I do know that following the law gives us opportunity to practice humility and offer love to our neighbors. But if the mayor of my town ordered that all people wear red clown noses 24 hours a day, I’d tell him where he could stuff his red clown nose.

Christians are also called to exercise prudence and I believe we do so when we follow the spirit of the law, but not necessarily the letter. Traffic laws, for instance, are in place so we can increase our chances of getting from point a to b in one piece and in courtesy of others who share the road. If I’m doing 5-10 mph over the (artificially set low) speed limit on an interstate and the flow of traffic is 10-20 mph over the speed limit, I might not be following the letter of the law, but I’m certainly obeying it’s spirit.

(I know I’m drifting off topic here) Sometimes following the law incorporates fear of the penalty and belief of what one can get away with. I firmly believe that when governments prevent citizens from carrying arms for self-defense and the defense of others it is against God’s law. But the penalties for doing so against the law are so harsh, that except perhaps in the most extreme circumstances, I dare not risk it.

I believe we are called to follow secular authority, but not in a way that violates God’s law and according to conscience. Also, scrupulousness in following secular laws is no different that scrupulousness in following God’s law.

Sorry for the long and perhaps rambling post.