Is it a sin to break a silly law?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jtaski
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Firefox said:
And, though I have never gotten a straight answer from Apple, I can tell you that I have read the License. You may burn it to up to 5 disks, but do nothing else with it. It is NOT ALLOWED to convert the burned files to MP3, sorry to burst your bubble.
Click to expand...
I just read through the terms of service (apple.com/legal/itunes/us/service.html) and I did not see any prohibition against converting files to mp3. I did see this provision:

(vii) You shall be entitled to export, burn (if applicable) or copy Products solely for personal, noncommercial use.

(my emphasis)

So I cannot see any prohibition against burning songs to CD and then converting them to mp3. In fact, they don’t even define “burn”, which really surprised me 🙂

Anyway, I would have absolutely no problem burning songs to a CD and then converting them to mp3 to put on my personal player.
 
VociMike said:
I just read through the terms of service (apple.com/legal/itunes/us/service.html) and I did not see any prohibition against converting files to mp3. I did see this provision:

(vii) You shall be entitled to export, burn (if applicable) or copy Products solely for personal, noncommercial use.

(my emphasis)

So I cannot see any prohibition against burning songs to CD and then converting them to mp3. In fact, they don’t even define “burn”, which really surprised me 🙂

Anyway, I would have absolutely no problem burning songs to a CD and then converting them to mp3 to put on my personal player.
Click to expand...
True, however, they are saying that you shall be entitled to export burn and copy products SOLELY for personal use. That’s the clause that you can’t sell it again yourself.

Also…

(x) You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules.

(xii) iTunes Plus Products do not contain security technology that limits your usage of such Products, and Usage Rules (iii) – (vi) do not apply to iTunes Plus Products. You may copy, store and burn iTunes Plus Products as reasonably necessary for personal, noncommercial use.

Conversion to MP3 circumvents the security devices, the DRM. Unless it’s the $1.29 Plus version, you cannot convert it to MP3 under the law.
 
Firefox said:
True, however, they are saying that you shall be entitled to export burn and copy products SOLELY for personal use. That’s the clause that you can’t sell it again yourself.

Also…

(x) You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules.

(xii) iTunes Plus Products do not contain security technology that limits your usage of such Products, and Usage Rules (iii) – (vi) do not apply to iTunes Plus Products. You may copy, store and burn iTunes Plus Products as reasonably necessary for personal, noncommercial use.

Conversion to MP3 circumvents the security devices, the DRM. Unless it’s the $1.29 Plus version, you cannot convert it to MP3 under the law.
Click to expand...
But when they allow you to burn the purchased songs to a regular audio CD it is that act that removes (I won’t say circumvents) the security technology, not any subsequent act of converting the audio CD tracks to mp3s. To put it another way, it is their own software that removes the security technology, not any outside software. Since it is their own software, it is obviously not a violation of their terms in this case when the security technology is removed.

The tradeoff then becomes OTOH the extra hassle of buring the CD, and the loss of quality (going compressed-uncompressed-compressed will cause a loss of quality) vs. paying the extra 30 cents for convenience and higher quality. But neither case (and in particular, not the first case) is a moral violation. They do allow burning purchased songs to an audio CD, and they don’t prohibit converting those burned CDs to mp3s (for personal use, obviously - no selling or even giving away).
 
Hastrman said:
Not if they require unreasonable things of you in order to use the product sold as you might reasonably expect to use it. “You will only use this MP3 in an iPod MP3 player which you’ll have to buy from us” is not reasonable (not to mention not part of the contract), therefore it is not legitimate.
Click to expand...
Right they are not saying that you can only use it on an iPod. You can use the mp3’s on your computer and you can burn them to CDs and has been stated there is a work around to get them to a non-iPod mp3 player.

Just because you do not like the terms of a contract does not mean that you can violate the law to get what you want.
 
But what about silly laws that tend to go unenforced?
For example it is illegal to back out your driveway where i live.
 
How are you suppose to get out of the driveway? Push? Or have a towtruck tow you out each time?
 
CAN you turn around in your driveway? If so, why would you not do so? Isn’t it safer for all concern for you to pull out into on-coming traffic rather than back-out into on-coming traffic?

And, if you caN’T turn around in your driveway, then you can’t obey the law even if you wanted to so it’s a mote point.
 
What exactly makes a law silly? Is it just that we do not agree with it or like it?

We are a representative democracy here in the States. The laws that are passed have some backing and some reason even if we do not like them.
 
ByzCath said:
What exactly makes a law silly? Is it just that we do not agree with it or like it?

We are a representative democracy here in the States. The laws that are passed have some backing and some reason even if we do not like them.
Click to expand...
Many times the laws had a reason which is no longer valid (or no longer considered valid). Or laws are written in a way that affect people and situations that the enacters of the law had no intention of affecting.

Just google “silly laws” and you’ll find all kinds of laws which are the “victims” of outdated reasons or unintended consequences.
 
VociMike said:
Many times the laws had a reason which is no longer valid (or no longer considered valid). Or laws are written in a way that affect people and situations that the enacters of the law had no intention of affecting.

Just google “silly laws” and you’ll find all kinds of laws which are the “victims” of outdated reasons or unintended consequences.
Click to expand...
And most of those laws that are no longer valid are hardly ever enforced.

As for the unintended effects, well there is a way to fix that and if they are bad enough the lawmakers and amend the law.

Again, from my reading of this thread it appears that “silly laws” are ones that are not liked by the individual.

A law is a law and the State has the God given right and power to enact them. To go against the State in this manner is sinful. Now for many of the laws I would say that they are venial sins but when the matter is grave then it is a mortal sin.

For example, earlier a poster stated that it is illegal to back out of his driveway where he lives. If he does so and is careful about it and nothing happens then it is a venial sin but if he does so and causes an accident and someone is injured it could be a mortal sin because his lack of regard for the State’s law that is to protect people and his thinking he is above it.
 
I think we are getting into dangerous ground when we try to make decisions based on what seems right in in our own eyes. The bloodiest, most violent book in the Bible is the the book of Judges, and the last verse (Judges 21:25) sums it all up by stating: “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what he thought best.”

Are we talking about a “silly” law? What was the reason for this law? As has been stated in previous posts, those songs belong to someone else, and we are paying for the privilege of owning them. Doesn’t the original owner have the right to decide on whatever terms he wants? If we don’t agree with his terms, we don’t have to do business with him.

I think you need to look deep into your soul, and ask God for guidance. Ask what your motive is. Our motive for everything in life, as Christians, should be love. Are you doing this out of love, or because you want something at the cheapest possible price you can get it, even if it means breaking the rules? The Seller is allowing you to buy these songs based on an agreement, and you say okay, give him the money, and then don’t abide by your promise.

It’s a cliche, but “What Would Jesus Do?”

Mary
 
Brooklyn said:
I think we are getting into dangerous ground when we try to make decisions based on what seems right in in our own eyes. The bloodiest, most violent book in the Bible is the the book of Judges, and the last verse (Judges 21:25) sums it all up by stating: “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what he thought best.”

Are we talking about a “silly” law? What was the reason for this law? As has been stated in previous posts, those songs belong to someone else, and we are paying for the privilege of owning them. Doesn’t the original owner have the right to decide on whatever terms he wants? If we don’t agree with his terms, we don’t have to do business with him.

I think you need to look deep into your soul, and ask God for guidance. Ask what your motive is. Our motive for everything in life, as Christians, should be love. Are you doing this out of love, or because you want something at the cheapest possible price you can get it, even if it means breaking the rules? The Seller is allowing you to buy these songs based on an agreement, and you say okay, give him the money, and then don’t abide by your promise.

It’s a cliche, but “What Would Jesus Do?”

Mary
Click to expand...
Great post Mary but one little nit pick on my part.

You said, “As has been stated in previous posts, those songs belong to someone else, and we are paying for the privilege of owning them.”. Actually we are not paying for the privilege of owning them. We are paying for the privilege to use them. The creator of them still retains ownership, this is why they can set terms on our usage. Same goes for computer software.
 
ByzCath said:
Great post Mary but one little nit pick on my part.

You said, “As has been stated in previous posts, those songs belong to someone else, and we are paying for the privilege of owning them.”. Actually we are not paying for the privilege of owning them. We are paying for the privilege to use them. The creator of them still retains ownership, this is why they can set terms on our usage. Same goes for computer software.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected. Thank you! 🙂

Mary
 
ByzCath said:
And most of those laws that are no longer valid are hardly ever enforced.

As for the unintended effects, well there is a way to fix that and if they are bad enough the lawmakers and amend the law.

Again, from my reading of this thread it appears that “silly laws” are ones that are not liked by the individual.

A law is a law and the State has the God given right and power to enact them. To go against the State in this manner is sinful. Now for many of the laws I would say that they are venial sins but when the matter is grave then it is a mortal sin.

For example, earlier a poster stated that it is illegal to back out of his driveway where he lives. If he does so and is careful about it and nothing happens then it is a venial sin but if he does so and causes an accident and someone is injured it could be a mortal sin because his lack of regard for the State’s law that is to protect people and his thinking he is above it.
Click to expand...
Each law needs to be taken individually when determining if it’s “silly” and I don’t see where if it’s enforced or not should matter. If it’s against the law to shoot holes in windows but no one enforces it, it’s still against the law. An example is that there is(or was, not sure about if it’s current or not) a law in Florida that says no one may shower naked. Silly? I think most would agree it is. It was a law put in effect because of people showering nude out on beaches with outdoor showers and no curtains. The law should have been written more specifically. Are (or were) people showering naked in their private bathrooms breaking the law? Yes. Was it a sin? TBH I’m not sure. At least in the US we do have recourse for silly laws in that we can lobby to have them removed.

We do not have to follow laws that contradict God’s Laws. Otherwise we are stuck with even the silly ones IMO.
 
Having said all of this.

I have to say, copyright laws are not one of the “silly laws”.

They are only silly to those who wish to rationalize illegal behavior.

They would not think twice about not stealing a car with the keys left in it but they seem to think downloading music that they did not pay for is somehow okay.
 
Mary, I just wanted to make sure that it was clear from my earlier posts that after consulting my spiritual director, I did indeed decide to delete all those songs off of my phone and use them as if I had never tampered with them (a.k.a. only on my computer, according to the terms and conditions I agreed to when downloading iTunes).

This is a good discussion though. In general, I agree that it is sinful to break a law of your country. Unless that law contradicts one of our commands given by God (like feeding the hungry or going to Mass).
 
I know this thread has been dead for a few days now, but I wanted to post when Michelle Arnold said about this topic in the “Ask An Apologist” section:
It is not intrinsically immoral to download free music, but it may be against the law. As it is within the just purview of the law to restrict such free downloads, a Catholic should respect the law if there is one in place. Check with a lawyer – one who specializes in copyright law would be especially helpful – to find out what the laws are in this matter.
Click to expand...
This answer shocked me. Here in Canada, P2P sharing is legal which, based on what Michelle said, leads me to believe that downloading anything off a P2P network would be OK…I don’t personally download (music, software, etc) but, in light of this, am I just doing it as a personal preference and not to avoid sin? Any thoughts?
 
matt, I think that even if p2p is legal, downloading copyrighted materials via p2p programs would still be illegal because of the copyright laws. There are other, non-copyrighted things that Canada’s laws are probably referring to when they say it’s legal to use p2p programs to download things. Better check that one out…
 
I know it’s odd, but the ruling literally said that even downloading copyrighted material is OK in Canada (although uploading it is not…ask yourself how you can have one without the other - kinda like cigarettes being illegal to buy/provide under 19, but legal to smoke over 16). The copyright rergulators tried to make up for this by imposing special taxes on mp3 players, including iPods, but I know for a fact that in Canada the copyright itself doesn’t matter. So as a summary, the uploader is doing something illegal, but the downloader is not.

Now I’m not saying that I agree with them since Canada has clearly lost its moral compass in many areas of its laws and justice, but if what Michelle Arnold says is true, then is it technically OK to do in countries like Canada?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top