Is downloading music wrong on its own or because it's illegal?

[GandalfTheWhite]

Let’s suppose you are in a country where downloading music (without sharing of course) is not illegal (there are many countries like that). Would it still be sinful to download music? I guess my question could also be phrased as this: Is downloading music (without consent of the author) morally wrong without taking legality into account.

I’m having a discussion with someone I know and I believe that it’s not OK. She says that it is.

If I’m correct then how to explain her that she is wrong? My understanding of ownership rights and morality when it comes to software is pretty limited.

Thank you.

Pax Christi,
~G

 

[Silver_Thread]

You find a wallet with money in it and their is identification inside. Can you keep it? Not until you make a reasonable effort to locate the owner. You know who owns the music. Whether or not it is legal in this country or that, your conscience tells you that you must make restitution to the owner of the music. As a Christian, we must live by Gods Laws first. Thou shalt not steal. Abortion is legal. Is it OK.? NO! That is my opinion and the way I’ ve been taught. I’m 65 yrs old.

 

[Transformer]

I’m not sure I understand the legal implications here. How can an artist simply not own his own (intellectual) property in a certain country? I still own all of my property regardless of what country I or my property is in. Does a country really have the authority to give away other people’s stuff?

 

[iamscifimike]

I’ve tried to work around this one a bit. Just because music is way to expensive and record companies could be accused of stealing doesn’t make it right. Robin Hood was a criminal right? My question is when is downloading music legal? ie when does music fall into public domain? I just found a site that buys music with advertizing money and in return for user cooperation, they may download the music legally. How long before this idea gets trampled?

Grumbly yours &

 

[goofyjim]

Download off of legal sites such as Apple or Realplayer. That way you are paying for the songs and there is nothing immoral about it.

 

[thistle]

Let’s suppose you are in a country where downloading music (without sharing of course) is not illegal (there are many countries like that). Would it still be sinful to download music? I guess my question could also be phrased as this: Is downloading music (without consent of the author) morally wrong without taking legality into account.

I’m having a discussion with someone I know and I believe that it’s not OK. She says that it is.

If I’m correct then how to explain her that she is wrong? My understanding of ownership rights and morality when it comes to software is pretty limited.

Thank you.

Pax Christi,
~G

If you live in a country where downloading music is legal how can that possibly be a sin. Its not up to us to try to contact the copyrightholder to see if there is an arrangement between them and the country. It should be assumed there is. I don’t see a sin here at all.

 

[BobP123]

But look at another side. If you don’t pay the musicians, maybe they’ll stop.

 

[JFonseka]

Yes, if you haven’t paid for material which must be paid for, it is morally incorrect and falls under the category of 'thou shalt not steal"

I agree record companies are corporate whores out to do highway robbery with music, however they do own the rights and it’s their price.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Thank you, that’s what I thought it would be.

Now, how you explain it to a person who holds the opposite stance. I’m having hard time explaining it. After all, software is not material and stealing software is not of the same nature as stealing a loaf of bread for example.

Pax Christi!
~G

 

[thechrismyster]

heres a synopsis that might clear a lot of misconceptions on what the law says…

theregister.co.uk/2003/07/28/copying_is_theft_and_other/

 

[sedix]

In my opinion there is a big difference between stealing a wallet and downloading software:

• if you steal the wallet, you have it, and the other person doesn’t
• if you download software, you have it, but the other person still has it. You haven’t stolen it, you have made a copy

I really think we shouldn’t download illegal software, but the only reason for that is that it is illegal, it is breaking human law (do not give scandal, Jesus paying his offer to the Temple in order not to give scandal etc.)

Generally speaking, Christians shoudn’t be breaking human law

I live in Italy, and in my country intellectual property expires 70 years after the death of the author.

So if you copy, for instance, a book, after 71 years, it’s alright, you are not breaking law.

Now, if one thinks that breaking intellectual property is exactly like stealing, then it should never expire. If you a steal a Greek statue, you are still stealing, even if it is very very old.

So, do you think we should be paying fees to Moses’s heirs because he wrote Exodus ?

 

[JFonseka]

Thank you, that’s what I thought it would be.

Now, how you explain it to a person who holds the opposite stance. I’m having hard time explaining it. After all, software is not material and stealing software is not of the same nature as stealing a loaf of bread for example.

Pax Christi!
~G

Of course it’s of the same nature, the nature falls under theft, or more specifically, taking something which should be paid for, as the owners want a payment, therefore intentionally taking it, is theft, and in it’s very nature is the same as stealing a loaf of bread.

 

[sedix]

Of course it’s of the same nature, the nature falls under theft, or more specifically, taking something which should be paid for, as the owners want a payment, therefore intentionally taking it, is theft, and in it’s very nature is the same as stealing a loaf of bread.

It’s not the same as stealing a loaf of bread.

If you steal a loaf of bread, the owner can’t use it any more

If you download software, the owner can still use it

So there’s a difference

It’s still wrong, but there’s a difference

By the way, do not quote me or respond to me, because if you do, I want a payment (i’m the owner of what I said)

 

[JFonseka]

It’s not the same as stealing a loaf of bread.

If you steal a loaf of bread, the owner can’t use it any more

If you download software, the owner can still use it

So there’s a difference

It’s still wrong, but there’s a difference

By the way, do not quote me or respond to me, because if you do, I want a payment (i’m the owner of what I said)

Wrong what you post here is copyrighted by catholic forums, this is why what users say on public boards can be used against them in the court of law. For if it only belonged to them and can’t be used without paying, then the prosecution would be paying users before prosecuting them Try again.

There is no difference in the nature of it, for stealing does not have to take into account the end result, this is what the nature of it implies. If you take something without paying, when the owner wants payment, it’s stealing. That is the nature of theft. And that is the principle applicable in the case of music, not that there are more copies left over.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Of course it’s of the same nature, the nature falls under theft, or more specifically, taking something which should be paid for, as the owners want a payment, therefore intentionally taking it, is theft, and in it’s very nature is the same as stealing a loaf of bread.

Right right, but how do you explain it to someone? They will say that when you steal a car the person will not have it and thus you’re harming him - it’s immoral. But if you download music then he will never miss it because it’s just a copy. A bit kind of like making a copy of a painting and hanging it on your wall. Up to that they might even say that they wouldn’t buy the music anyways because they don’t have the money so even if I 'm correct the author wouldn’t be loosing any money.

I guess in the end they would say this say that there are really only two options:

1. They download a song: The author doesn’t loose anything and doesn’t get paid anything. They are happy.
2. They don’t download anything. The author doesn’t loose anything and doesn’t get paid anything. They are not happy.

So how to argue back?

There is no difference in the nature of it, for stealing does not have to take into account the end result, this is what the nature of it implies. If you take something without paying, when the owner wants payment, it’s stealing. That is the nature of theft. And that is the principle applicable in the case of music, not that there are more copies left over.

To play **the devil’s advocate **(I apologize): But these people only download copies of the programs/songs, they don’t actually steal them. Also even if copying music would be theft they don’t copy, they don’t copy the originals. They download the copies that someone else put on the internet. If it is really theft then those people are guilty and not the people who download.

 

[sedix]

Wrong what you post here is copyrighted by catholic forums

You hit the point, there’s a law saying that catholic forums is the owner of what i wrote.

However, you won’t say that it is NATURAL law, it is only human law.

Theft is forbidden by natural law, copying is forbidden by human law (which we should respect as well)

If the law says intellecual property lasts 70 years after death of author, I do not owe anything after 71 years, even if the author’s heirs want to be paid

So it is a human law, because natural law has no expiry

I hope you see my point

 

[JFonseka]

You hit the point, there’s a law saying that catholic forums is the owner of what i wrote.

However, you won’t say that it is NATURAL law, it is only human law.

Theft is forbidden by natural law, copying is forbidden by human law (which we should respect as well)

If the law says intellecual property lasts 70 years after death of author, I do not owe anything after 71 years, even if the author’s heirs want to be paid

So it is a human law, because natural law has no expiry

I hope you see my point

No I did not prove anything for you, they own what you posted, you said you owned what you posted hence I have to charge for usage, but in fact that was not true, and since Catholic forums isn’t charging anyone for quoting, the rest of your point is void because you premise is faulty.

It is natural law not to steal, where are you going with this? In this case it’s against the law to copy music and distribute it or download it without paying as much as it’s against natural law.

Copyright ending means anyone can use the music for what they wish, if they wish to record their own version and sell it, THEY CAN without giving away profits. What it does not mean is you can start distributing other people’s music.

Get the facts!

 

[sedix]

No I did not prove anything for you, they own what you posted, you said you owned what you posted hence I have to charge for usage, but in fact that was not true, and since Catholic forums isn’t charging anyone for quoting, the rest of your point is void because you premise is faulty.

It is natural law not to steal, where are you going with this? In this case it’s against the law to copy music and distribute it or download it without paying as much as it’s against natural law.

Copyright ending means anyone can use the music for what they wish, if they wish to record their own version and sell it, THEY CAN without giving away profits. What it does not mean is you can start distributing other people’s music.

Get the facts!

Steal= steal
Copy= copy
two different things
Steal= forbidden by natural law
Copy= non forbidden by natural law

Of course you can start distributing other people’s music, provided they died more than 70 years ago. It’s perfectly lawful

If I own a beautiful house, and people start coming to take pictures of it, and I want to charge them for taking pictures, I can’t do that, because there is no law giving me that right

So yes, you can copy something even if the owner is expecting a payment from it, and you are not breaking natural law.

Now, one can argue that copying software is a violation of the 4th commandment (and not of the 7th)

The 4th commandment provides not only about father and mother, but commands also to obey just laws approved by legitimate authorities (see CCC 2240 or about there, if I remember correctly)

So now we have a legitimate authority approving a law for a very good reason indeed, so we have to obey it

With this point of view, I definitely agree. Breach of 4th commandment, not of 7th

 

[franco_antonio]

HOW ABOUT THE WORD “SHARING”?, Someone buy the music and kind enough to share it to others. Is it wrong?

In the Law of Man, we know it is illegal.

 

[h03m]

Hi, I think a lot of people here don’t understand file sharing. If I had I CD (which I bought from a shop) and gave it to my brother - he transfers the CD onto his iPod, then I get my CD back and listen to it, we have ‘shared’ that CD. No crime has taken place, nothing immoral has taken place. This is what goes on on the internet, but instead of sharing my CD with members of my family, I’m sharing it with people on the internet. Again, nothing immoral or illegal. Some fascist countries outlaw this, but that’s because they’re totalitarian sites, who want to control the release of information, to keep people brainwashed - to implant a false reality. Hope this helps!

M.