Is downloading music for free a sin? When and how can it be okay?

[I_am_learning]

I know a lot of people download music for free. This being easy since there are a ton of programs and apps out there. These people are mainly those who cannot buy their own music, i’m assuming. So, is it wrong? Does it depend? I know certain sites are fully good, but not so sure about others. If you have any criteria for when it’s alright, or any sites/apps/programs you suggest, that would be great. For me, personally, i’m not sure. I have done some downloading mostly from apps, and someone wanted me to put some songs on a disk recently, so I finally decided to ask.
Thank you!

 

[FrDavid96]

It is moral if it is also legal.

The moral issue here is stealing (or not).

If the owner of the music (copyright) makes it available for free and offers it for download, then there’s nothing wrong with downloading it.

If it is not offered for free download by the actual owner (either directly, or by legitimate proxy), then it’s stealing.

The easiest way to know is to ask the simple question: is it legal?

 

[Edmundus1581]

It is moral if it is also legal.

The moral issue here is stealing (or not).

If the owner of the music (copyright) makes it available for free and offers it for download, then there’s nothing wrong with downloading it.

If it is not offered for free download by the actual owner (either directly, or by legitimate proxy), then it’s stealing.

The easiest way to know is to ask the simple question: is it legal?

The next question is: how does one know whether a particular download is “legal”?

The short and simple answer is: Do I have a choice of paying for this, or getting it for free? If you have a choice, then you have to pay. No one puts a song on iTunes for $1.99 to give it away elsewhere. Similarly for movies and apps. The “free” option is provided by a third-party who has stolen their work, so that they themselves can make money assisting other people to steal it.

One can apply a bit of commonsense, by first asking:

• Is it likely that this artist or their publisher intended this to be free?
• Does this app, or site, appear to circumvent the legitimate means of distribution?

The answer to the first question is that, in most cases, professional artists and their publishers expect you to pay for their work. They do not go to the effort and expense of producing quality work, just to give it away. If you are downloading a free copy of anything by a professional artist then look for affirmation from the artist or producer that this particular work is intended to be free. For professional artists, paid work is the rule, and free the exception.

Upcoming and indie artists sometimes provide work for free, as self-promotion. If such is the case, then it should be clear. Download it only from their personal page, where they make it available.

Artists know and care about copyright, and if they intend something to be free then they will say so. You don’t have the excuse “No one told me that this wasn’t free”.

The answer to question two is also quite simple, in most cases. Any site, or app, which provides a large number of free downloads of professional work is illegal. How to tell? If you can search for any current hit or movie and download it, then it is illegal (and stealing if you use it). 100%.

There is an important distinction between downloading and viewing. Downloading is when you make your own copy of the item, and viewing is when you watch it on the site, or play it on your phone, without keeping a copy. This is where many violations of copyright happen. If the publisher of a video or song intends you to download it, then they provide a Download option on the site, or app. If you have to use a third-party app to download it, then you are stealing. The most prominent example is YouTube. YouTube material can be watched legally on the site, but to download anything is “stealing”, because you are circumventing YouTube’s copy protection.

In short, if you have a choice of paying or getting it for free, then pay, except when you are watching the clip without downloading. Anything else is almost certainly stealing, unless you can prove that this particular case has published for free by the artist or producer.

 

[Tim_D]

If it is not offered for free download by the actual owner (either directly, or by legitimate proxy), then it’s stealing.

Just wondering, Father; does that include borrowing a CD, book or movie from a friend, listening, reading or watching it without compensating the actual owner of the work?

What about things posted on Youtube? Is it stealing to listen to a KISS album when the band themselves don’t receive anything in return?

 

[Tim_D]

The most prominent example is YouTube. YouTube material can be watched legally on the site, but to download anything is “stealing”, because you are circumventing YouTube’s copy protection.

So, let me see if I understand; it is ok to bookmark a page on Youtube and listen/watch a particular song/video 100 times a day but to download it is “stealing?”

 

[I_am_learning]

Helpful responses, thank you.

I was doing some digging and found a few websites:
digitaltrends.com/music/best-free-and-legal-music-download-sites/2/
itunes.apple.com/us/app/ongaqu-find-royalty-free-music/id976204506?mt=8

So, are the apps/sites on that site legal and good? I guess with what the poster above said, it is not, but look at it anyway please.

Now taking one of those “legal” downloading sites from the site, Sound Cloud, it seems to have artist posted songs (profiles) as well as user posted songs. You get an option to add to a playlist or just listen to it once you click it. Any feedback on this one?
Would using data (not downloading) count as being okay? I’m sure it depends.

 

[FrDavid96]

Just wondering, Father; does that include borrowing a CD, book or movie from a friend, listening, reading or watching it without compensating the actual owner of the work?

As long as it is personal use, then that’s OK.
Artists (or authors, etc.) already know that people are going to share books or music. That’s an unavoidable reality. For example, a newspaper or magazine does not expect a family of 5 people to purchase 5 subscriptions; on the contrary, they actually calculate their circulation to be so-many-times the actual number of copies sold.

The same is true for any other artist. An author knows that a book will be shared and implicitly agrees to this by agreeing to have the book published in the first place.

On the other hand, if I invite 30 of my “friends” to come to my house and watch a projected movie on the garage door (all of whom just happen to give me a few dollars), then that’s violating the intent of the original artist.

Can this be a gray area? Of course yes. There’s no defining line between use that’s truly personal and non-personal. 30 family members all gathered around a big screen TV, watching a newly released DVD at a family picnic is personal. So how big can my family be before it becomes non-personal? It’s a grey area. If one is charging money, then its not personal use (no gray area there).

When it comes to distributing on the internet, there’s no doubt that this exceeds personal use because there is no way that someone can claim that a thing posted on the internet is personal.

What about things posted on Youtube? Is it stealing to listen to a KISS album when the band themselves don’t receive anything in return?

It all depends. Did the band give permission? That’s the relevant question.

Some bands allow this, even encourage it. Some do not.

It comes back to the same question: does the original artist (or whoever legitimately owns the material) give permission?

It is not always about whether or not the original artist will be compensated—although that’s certainly an important element. It’s about whether or not the artist consents to the distribution. Some bands want free publicity and welcome people to distribute their performances.

 

[FrDavid96]

Helpful responses, thank you.

I was doing some digging and found a few websites:
digitaltrends.com/music/best-free-and-legal-music-download-sites/2/
itunes.apple.com/us/app/ongaqu-find-royalty-free-music/id976204506?mt=8

So, are the apps/sites on that site legal and good? I guess with what the poster above said, it is not, but look at it anyway please.

Now taking one of those “legal” downloading sites from the site, Sound Cloud, it seems to have artist posted songs (profiles) as well as user posted songs. You get an option to add to a playlist or just listen to it once you click it. Any feedback on this one?
Would using data (not downloading) count as being okay? I’m sure it depends.

I have my doubts as to the legality of some of those sites. The reason I say that is because the author of the article states outright a few times something like “we’re not sure this is legal.” If the author (who actually has expertise in this matter) is unsure, then I certainly have my doubts.

Civil law is not my field of expertise. I can help on issues of morals, but not legal ones as such.

There is no doubt that iTunes is a legal site (that much I can say).

As for Sound Cloud, I’ve never heard of it (which means little). All I can say is that IF the claims are true, meaning that the artists do offer their music for free, then there’s nothing immoral about it. Obviously, if anyone is posting commercial music who is not the copyright holder, then that’s immoral. So if someone posts an album which everyone knows is commercial, but intentionally misspells an artists name (or some other deception) to avoid detection, then you know it’s wrong.

 

[Edmundus1581]

So, let me see if I understand; it is ok to bookmark a page on Youtube and listen/watch a particular song/video 100 times a day but to download it is “stealing?”

Yes. Exactly.

If YouTube haven’t assisted you to download it, then they don’t intend you to. Whether that seems sensible to you or not, that is their right to decide.

In addition, from the YouTube Terms of Service:

Content is provided to you AS IS. You may access Content for your information and personal use solely as intended through the provided functionality of the Service and as permitted under these Terms of Service**. You shall not download any Content unless you see a “download” or similar link displayed by YouTube on the Service for that Content. You shall not copy, reproduce, make available online or electronically transmit, publish, adapt, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content.** YouTube and its licensors reserve all rights not expressly granted in and to the Service and the Content.

Now, as to whether it makes sense - Yes, it does. When you watch a video on the site then 1: You are looking at YouTube’s advertising, which is their revenue source, and 2: YouTube counts another “hit” for that video. The “hit” count results, in the end, as revenue for the artist and/or YouTube. When you download the video then you bypass the advertising and the hit count.

Always, trust the publisher. If they haven’t enabled you to download it, then they don’t intend you to. They know exactly what they are doing.

But, you don’t want to watch the advertising? Then pay for the original, on iTunes or gPlay (for example). But don’t download it illegally - which is stealing.

 

[Tim_D]

Yes. Exactly.

Actually, no. In criminal law there is no such term as “stealing;” there is the term “theft,” which means taking possession of something that does not belong to you or depriving the legal owner the use of it.

If a person buys a CD and decides to make a copy of it for a friend, is that considered “theft?” If so, from whom has the theft occurred? The legal owner of the CD? Likewise, too, if someone who has legally purchased a CD e-mails a song to another. Does he have that right?

When you watch a video on the site then 1: You are looking at YouTube’s advertising, which is their revenue source, and 2: YouTube counts another “hit” for that video. The “hit” count results, in the end, as revenue for the artist and/or YouTube. When you download the video then you bypass the advertising and the hit count…

If you toggle between the full screen mode and the normal screen mode at the beginning of a commercial on Youtube, it goes directly to the video. One can, then, watch the video free of commercials. Do you consider that “theft?”

 

[I_am_learning]

I have my doubts as to the legality of some of those sites. The reason I say that is because the author of the article states outright a few times something like “we’re not sure this is legal.” If the author (who actually has expertise in this matter) is unsure, then I certainly have my doubts.

Civil law is not my field of expertise. I can help on issues of morals, but not legal ones as such.

There is no doubt that iTunes is a legal site (that much I can say).

As for Sound Cloud, I’ve never heard of it (which means little). All I can say is that IF the claims are true, meaning that the artists do offer their music for free, then there’s nothing immoral about it. Obviously, if anyone is posting commercial music who is not the copyright holder, then that’s immoral. So if someone posts an album which everyone knows is commercial, but intentionally misspells an artists name (or some other deception) to avoid detection, then you know it’s wrong.

Yeah, I do see some artist profiles, so that should be good.
(Any more feedback on certain programs would be great though)

About the disk burning, it doesn’t seem like i’ll be able to do that legally, but my relatives see this as a normal thing, using programs like Ares for their phone and disks. Seeing as they are lukewarm in their faith, I don’t see any possibility of convincing them that it’s wrong, so do I simply respectfully decline, or do I try to convince them anyway?

 

[Tim_D]

As long as it is personal use, then that’s OK.
Artists (or authors, etc.) already know that people are going to share books or music. That’s an unavoidable reality.

But here is my problem with the whole concept. Some years ago I was curious about information about some old European coins that I have. The Guide Book To World Coins is as big as a phone book and cost $100. Not wanting to spend so much on a book that I really only needed to consult once, I went to the library, checked out last year’s edition and got the information I wanted without it costing a cent. Did not the library enable me to make use of another’s legally protected work without any form of recompense? Are not libraries vast storehouses of protected works (books, newspapers, magazine, CDs, DVDs, etc.) that allow people to consume their contents without any form of compensation to the legal holders and publishers? How is it really any different for someone to upload something on Youtube that they do not own the rights to versus a library that receives a donation of books that they loan out without securing permission or compensating the publishers/editors/authors/etc.?

Can this be a gray area? Of course, yes.

To say the least!

 

[Tim_D]

The easiest way to know is to ask the simple question: is it legal?

Not trying to be smart but there are many things that are “legal” that are still unethical and highly immoral. Legal status does not make something which is immoral acceptable.

 

[FrDavid96]

But here is my problem with the whole concept. Some years ago I was curious about information about some old European coins that I have. The Guide Book To World Coins is as big as a phone book and cost $100. Not wanting to spend so much on a book that I really only needed to consult once, I went to the library, checked out last year’s edition and got the information I wanted without it costing a cent. Did not the library enable me to make use of another’s legally protected work without any form of recompense? Are not libraries vast storehouses of protected works (books, newspapers, magazine, CDs, DVDs, etc.) that allow people to consume their contents without any form of compensation to the legal holders and publishers? How is it really any different for someone to upload something on Youtube that they do not own the rights to versus a library that receives a donation of books that they loan out without securing permission or compensating the publishers/editors/authors/etc.?

To say the least!

Discussing library books is (can be) a good point.

However, the fact that we can borrow from libraries does not legitimize making unauthorized copies of material.

An act is either morally right or morally wrong. Making a comparison with something else might help us to arrive at a conclusion sometimes, but it doesn’t change what we already know to be wrong.

As I wrote earlier, when an author publishes a book, the author knows (must know) that there is a potential for that book to find its way onto a library shelf. There is no deception on the part of the library or the borrower. Keep in mind though, that if a library wants more than one copy of a book, then the library must buy more copies (or make legitimate arrangements). That makes the situation very different indeed from someone who makes unauthorized copies and gives them to friends. The situations are very different.

I can get back to this later. Right now I have to leave the computer.