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

[sedix]

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.

Well, i’m not sure i can agree with you

Of course, the behavior you are describing does not violate natural law (even if some people seem not to agree on this)

Imho, the point is:
should we, as Catholics, respect human law ?

The answer of CCC seems to be (if i understand it correctly):
yes, as long as it is not an unjust law

So the question becomes:
is the human law that regulates intellectual property an unjust law ?
(i’m talking about the law in western countries, since i know nothing about the law in other places)

A human law can be:

• according to natural law. For instance, a law against murder is according to natural law, and it should be respected no matter what
• against natural law=unjust. For instance, a law granting a right to abortion is against natural law and ought to be fighted against no matter what
• indifferent to natural law. For example, a law saying that when driving a car, we should drive on the right of the road, not on the left

Even if a human law is indifferent to natural law, we should respect it all the same, because it is given for the good of society. Clearly, if someone drives on the right, and others drive on the left, it would be a real mess. So it is a good thing to respect this law.

In my opinion, there is a presumption that human law is not unjust.
That is, if you think that a law is unjust, you have to give evidence

For me, the law on intellectual property is indifferent to natural law, not an unjust law.
But, given that this is just my opinion, i’d be happy to hear reasons supporting a different opinion

You say that fascist countries made this law, but this isn’t enough as a reason because:

• if a country is fascist or not is a matter of opinion
• even fascist countries sometimes made just laws. Most were unjust laws, but some were, sometimes

 

[h03m]

To make it illegal to give my brother my CD so that he can put it on his iPod is an unjust law. How can anyone argue otherwise, without supporting fascism? And fascism is 100% bad, period. M.

Well, i’m not sure i can agree with you

Of course, the behavior you are describing does not violate natural law (even if some people seem not to agree on this)

Imho, the point is:
should we, as Catholics, respect human law ?

The answer of CCC seems to be (if i understand it correctly):
yes, as long as it is not an unjust law

So the question becomes:
is the human law that regulates intellectual property an unjust law ?
(i’m talking about the law in western countries, since i know nothing about the law in other places)

A human law can be:

• according to natural law. For instance, a law against murder is according to natural law, and it should be respected no matter what
• against natural law=unjust. For instance, a law granting a right to abortion is against natural law and ought to be fighted against no matter what
• indifferent to natural law. For example, a law saying that when driving a car, we should drive on the right of the road, not on the left

Even if a human law is indifferent to natural law, we should respect it all the same, because it is given for the good of society. Clearly, if someone drives on the right, and others drive on the left, it would be a real mess. So it is a good thing to respect this law.

In my opinion, there is a presumption that human law is not unjust.
That is, if you think that a law is unjust, you have to give evidence

For me, the law on intellectual property is indifferent to natural law, not an unjust law.
But, given that this is just my opinion, i’d be happy to hear reasons supporting a different opinion

You say that fascist countries made this law, but this isn’t enough as a reason because:

• if a country is fascist or not is a matter of opinion
• even fascist countries sometimes made just laws. Most were unjust laws, but some were, sometimes

 

[sedix]

To make it illegal to give my brother my CD so that he can put it on his iPod is an unjust law. How can anyone argue otherwise, without supporting fascism? And fascism is 100% bad, period. M.

I really can’t understand why some people make statements without giving reasons

If you don’t give reasons, it is likely that you are not stating the truth, but only your feelings

Another person in this thread said that copying software or music is stealing, without giving reason, but being absolutely certain

You say that forbidding to copy music is fascism, without giving reason, but being absolutely certain

At least one of you must be wrong, don’t you think ?

 

[1234electrik]

I agree that it’s fine to share music, because, from Wikipedia:

Arguments against copyright

The classic argument for personal copyright is to grant developers temporary monopolies over their works to encourage further development by giving the developer a source of income. Those against copyright suggest that income to a developer should be generated by other means, for several reasons:
Making the developer dependent on a system that requires enforcement by force directly ties them to large corporate entities which are able to carry out this enforcement, but may at the same time limit creative output to that which is compatible with corporate ideology.
Royalties are based on profit-margin, but when one intends for their data to be non-profit (that is, if the only reason to publish is to share information), it becomes financially unsound to attempt to claim royalties on something you never sold, since the royalties of your product might have royalties from whatever works used.
Copyright was intended as, and until recently has been used mostly for, a regulation on commercial and for-profit use of creative works. While technically most copyright laws applied to individuals making copies, it was only the advent of the personal computer that made it possible for individuals to copy significant amounts of information. Many argue that this new ability calls for a fundamental change to, or the abolition of copyright.
Enforcement mechanisms such as digital rights management endanger existing consumer rights like fair use, and can be used to further tie creators to the corporate entities that control this technology since even a use which may be legally considered fair use may be hampered or rendered impossible by the technological restrictions. “Trusted computing” platforms may refuse to play, display or execute content that is not properly “certified” by central authorities.
Little known creators depend on distribution to become popular—for them, copyright limits their potential outreach, and donations may be a better option. Well known creators can always ask for money from their fans upfront (Street Performer Protocol).
Article 8 of the Berne Convention may have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and may force an overseas audience to learn the language that the medium in the question is published in, and can cause a foreign company to act against its overseas audience. International copyright law is regarded as controversial by the video game, anime, and manga communities in the United States and Europe, such as Fan translation, Scanlation, and Fansub.
Historically, copyright originated only in the last few centuries. Creativity flourished well before copyright existed.
The European Renaissance saw a burgeoning of intellectual talent, the like of which has not been seen since. It occurred before the existence of copyrights, and was spurred by artists copying each other’s techniques and works without legal restriction. The argument that copyright law protects and encourages development is seen by many as hype intended to provide moral justification for laws which in fact are there to protect the incomes and wealth of copyright holders, many of whom are not the original developers anyway. The ease and convenience of being able to obtain and preserve many intellectual works across the Internet, it is argued, will lead to greater development if copyright law is abolished. Whilst it may not be possible for popular artists and their agents to make as much money in this scenario, it is likely that popular artists will still be able to make a living by means of advertising and product promotion, as they do at present or perhaps by busking, if that is the only option open to them.
While some are in favor of limited copyright terms, copyrights in many countries last for periods longer than a human lifetime and can even be renewed after that. Even if a limited copyright period still offered a beneficial result, long copyright terms hold for longer than necessary.
Many argue that copyright is inherently contrary to the ideals of free speech and expression which are valued highly by free societies.

 

[1234electrik]

Some companies abuse copyright privileges by suing or threatening to sue those who clearly are within their rights under fair use, but who cannot afford to defend themselves in court.
Information is not conducive to the same treatment as real property, due to its status as a nonrival good.
Frequently, content creators do not hold their own copyrights, instead relinquishing them to publishers, producers, and the like, through contractual arrangements.
Social anarchists believe ideas and knowledge should not be owned or controlled, but rather should be distributed freely throughout society for anyone’s use (so long as the original creator of these ideas/contributions is properly acknowledged for his efforts). Libertarian socialists have customarily not prosecuted one another for copyright “violations” and usually do not provide royalties when translating or republishing each others works.
Copyrights are selfish; they place the good of the one (the creator) over the good of the many (the audience). Instead of allowing a work to be improved and redistributed by those who may be more qualified than the original author, works are restricted in the name of monetary profit. For example, a commercially sold Encyclopedia’s content cannot be updated or redistributed by the readers, while Wikipedia’s content can be shared with and updated by all people.
Copyrights reduce the incentive for developers to continue working, since they can receive an income by collecting license fees or royalties for popular older works instead of developing new ones. Besides limiting innovation, this may also be seen as unjust by workers in other fields, who must keep working if they wish to keep making a living.
It is possible for creators to earn income, independent of copyright, by incorporating advertising into their works.
[edit]
Analogy to protectionism
“Intellectual protectionism” is a derogatory term for the expansion of copyright, patent, and similar laws. It is often used as an ironic synonym, as it shares initials with “intellectual property”, especially by proponents of free culture, who seek to relax restrictions on distribution of digital works.
Calling these intellectual property laws ‘protectionism’ is an analogy derived from economic protectionism, a practice or policy whereby a country imposes levies or restrictions on imported goods in order to favor domestic markets. The basis for this comparison stems from the argument that:
The exclusive rights granted by copyright and patent law constitute a government-granted monopoly.
This monopoly is granted in order to incentivize the production of such works and discoveries, purportedly for the public’s benefit.
There are also public costs in many forms: the making of derivative works is forbidden for the interim;
The perpetuation and expansion of such exclusive rights is not cost-effective; it benefits a few (esp. large organizations in the content industry) at the expense of the public, and the public domain.

 

[sedix]

1234electrik:

Historically, copyright originated only in the last few centuries. Creativity flourished well before copyright existed.

The argument that copyright law protects and encourages development is seen by many as hype intended to provide moral justification for laws which in fact are there to protect the incomes and wealth of copyright holders, many of whom are not the original developers anyway…

I think wikipedia makes out some very good points, especially the two quoted above.

As far as the first is concerned, it gives further evidence that copyright does not belong to natural law, since it never existed until a few centuries ago.

The other point imho gives the key to the debate: we should make a comparison between:

• the protection and encouragement of development
• the protection of people against being exploited by copyright holders

You can’t say that one of those two is ALWAYS more important.

There may be cases when it is more important to protect and encourage development (of new medicines, perhaps)
It is difficult to think that pharma companies would invest billions of dollars on discovering new medicines if they were not protected by law. How could they possibly recover their costs otherwise ?

There may be cases when it is more important to protect people from being exploited. Talking about music, it is difficult to imagine that pop stars would die of starvation if copyright didn’t exist

There may be cases when a balance between the two issues should be found. For example, a law might say that a copyright holder may charge its fees provided they do not exceed …$, or some other parameter

More thought is needed

 

[franco_antonio]

The other point imho gives the key to the debate: we should make a comparison between:
**- the protection and encouragement of development

• the protection of people against being exploited by copyright holders**
  You can’t say that one of those two is ALWAYS more important.

There may be cases when it is more important to protect and encourage development (of new medicines, perhaps)
It is difficult to think that pharma companies would invest billions of dollars on discovering new medicines if they were not protected by law. How could they possibly recover their costs otherwise ?

There may be cases when it is more important to protect people from being exploited. Talking about music, it is difficult to imagine that pop stars would die of starvation if copyright didn’t exist

I think this phrase, “the protection and encouragement of development”, is already resolve through the use of copyright laws. The second phrase you mentioned can also be correlated through the law of patency and licensing. In medicine, it can be called as “generic”.

So my question is, when does the protection through the use copyright laws ends? I agree with you, it is difficult to imagine that composer/singer would die of starvation if copyright didn’t exist. But would you believe that even, if the composer/singer is already dead, their songs/compositions is still earning because of copyrights.

God Bless!

 

[sedix]

I think this phrase, “the protection and encouragement of development”, is already resolve through the use of copyright laws. The second phrase you mentioned can also be correlated through the law of patency and licensing. In medicine, it can be called as “generic”.

So my question is, when does the protection through the use copyright laws ends? I agree with you, it is difficult to imagine that composer/singer would die of starvation if copyright didn’t exist. But would you believe that even, if the composer/singer is already dead, their songs/compositions is still earning because of copyrights.

God Bless!

The protection given by copyright laws has different durations according to the type of intellectual property:

• utility patents expire after 20 years
• design patents expire after 14 years
• pharma patents after 20 years (in Italy, at least)
• copyright on music, movies, books, paintings and so on expire 70 years after the death of the author (in Europe, at least. In the US i don’t know)

Now, if i understand you correctly, you are saying that 70 years after the death of the author is way too long for copyright on art.

I agree with you

I think that if an author wants to write a book or compose a song, he would do it all the same even if copyright lasted, say, only 20 years after death.

Copyright law ought to find a balance between private and public benefit.
Private benefit = money coming to the author from copyright
Public benefit = the people have a right to use new discoveries free of charge

Now, I think copyright law as enacted nowadays in western countries, gives too much favor to private benefit, as far as copyright on art is concerned.
Maybe, it gives too much favor to public benefit on pharma and industrial copyright

Also, it may be useful to think about the following statement of St. Thomas Aquinas, written nearly 8 centuries ago:

Question: how much should bread cost ?
Answer: not too much and not too little.
Not too much, because otherwise the poor can’t afford it
Not too little, because otherwise the breadmaker can’t earn his living

Funny, how the Catholic Church seems to have had an answer to modern problems for a very long time

 

[Holly3278]

Its wrong because it is stealing. Plain and simple.

 

[stayathomemommy]

It hasnt always been illegal here in the US. A law was passed because people everywhere started doing it and it became so wide spread that they had to make it illegal. Yes the record company still makes tons of money but the fact remains you didnt pay for the song you downloaded AND most likely didnt go buy the CD because you already had your favorite song.

Was it immoral before they made the law to make it illegal?? YES, it was immoral before and after any law was established.

*i am not perfect, and have downloaded myself before. mostly TV shows.

 

[SuperH]

This is something I’ve thought about greatly over the years of downloadable media…

My question is - from a different perspective - if downloading music is immoral, is it immoral to record it off of the radio onto cassettes or CDs? What about satellite radio? Is it immoral to record off of there on satellite radio devices that record for later playback?

So then extending that – if you’ve heard a song on the radio, is it alright to download it from a file sharing application?

How do these differ? I’m interested in all responses.

This is where the issue confuses me a bit and throws my mind in a loop!

Thanks!

 

[franco_antonio]

Now, if i understand you correctly, you are saying that 70 years after the death of the author is way too long for copyright on art.

Do you have any idea why 70 years?

 

[sedix]

Do you have any idea why 70 years?

I think because the law presumes that, after 70 years, the children of the author must be dead, so they don’t need the income from copyright any more

Sure, there will be grandsons, great-grandsons etc, but this can’t go on forever, there must be a limit

 

[franco_antonio]

I think because the law presumes that, after 70 years, the children of the author must be dead, so they don’t need the income from copyright any more

Sure, there will be grandsons, great-grandsons etc, but this can’t go on forever, there must be a limit

Definitely! You’re right! But not really a good reason to extend such copyrights to 70 years. Another thing, does the law states for the reconsideration of the authors childrens’ children? or the right of the author can be inherited by his children?

God Bless!

 

[sedix]

Definitely! You’re right! But not really a good reason to extend such copyrights to 70 years. Another thing, does the law states for the reconsideration of the authors childrens’ children? or the right of the author can be inherited by his children?

God Bless!

The law gives all the rights of the author to his heirs:

• if he dies without a will, to his wife, sons, or if he has none, to his closest relatives
• if he dies with a will, to the heirs appointed in the will

Yes, 70 years after death is definitely too much.
If you write a book when, say, you are 30, and then you die when you are 80, that makes 50 + 70 = 120 years of copyright !

 

[franco_antonio]

really! well thanks!

somehow law is a law, may in future it will be amended if there is a circumstances that will question or shatter the principle of this law.

i’m not against the copyrights law, but 70 years of effectiveness is too long.

God Bless!

 

[JoshR]

Priest told me if its copyrighted then its stealing so it is a sin