Is ripping music off of youtube to listen to a sin?

[Joe_5859]

Or what if you go into your local Barnes and Noble and sit at the store coffeshop and read a magazine you have not bought. The store totally allows that but I am sure the publisher would be unhappy that you read the magazine without buying it.

That is essentially the same as ripping an mps off of youtube.

So a goverment stamp of approval is the determination? Ok I listen to copywrited material on youtube or stream a pirated movie someplace and it is a sin. I go to the library and do essentially the same thing and it is not becaus ethe goverment says it is ok.

Then what is the logic behind say opposition to the death penalty. If I go out and murder someon at random it is a sin. If the goverment decides to execute someone that should be ok because the goverment said it is ok just like the library.

Government is unanimous in saying that abortion is ok…they even pay for it. Shouldn;t that government stamp of approval say it is ok?

There are like a zillion other examples I can think of where something that is obviously sinful is given a stamp of approval and even defended by the government.

Does that make us cafeteria citizens or something if we pick and choose which laws we want to follow?

You’re adding a lot of analogies to the mix, most of which are not apt comparisons, in an attempt to rationalize away such actions.

No one is denying that the government is not all powerful. Nor is anyone denying that they sometimes enshrine into law things that are gravely immoral. That does not therefore mean that all laws are optional. That is the road to anarchy.

Do you really want to compare laws protecting copyright to laws permitting abortion? Really? Frankly, I find that very insulting to the dignity of the unborn.

Do we or do we not have an obligation to follow civil law where it does not contradict the moral law? Catholic teaching is pretty clear that we do (see CCC 2238-2243).

That being the case, unless there is a compelling moral reason (and I cannot see any way in which free music or the convenience of listening to such music on our own terms would be such a compelling reason) we ought to follow the law on this one. If we don’t like the laws, we can make our voice known and try to change them.

Reading a magazine in a store and ripping an mp3 are not comparable either. If you read something in a store and put it back, you do not have access to that material in perpetuity. That is not an insignificant difference. I’m pretty sure most stores frown on people doing that anyway.

 

[Joe_5859]

What if the person who uploaded the song or movie did so from a copy that he purchased?

Remember when we used to make mixtapes for our friends of all our favorite songs? Was that bad? Or you might make a mix CD of sappy love songs for your wife or GF on valentines day this weekend, burnt from songs in **your **library that she did not pay for. Would it be sinful for her to accept that CD with her chocolate and flowers? That mixtape or CD is basically pirated media once you hand it out as it is technically in violation of copywrite law. So you just broke the civil law which means you committed a sin!

Again, you are introducing more comparisons that aren’t apt. Making a mix CD for your wife from songs that you own and ripping songs off YouTube are two completely different things. Making a mix CD in such a case is not illegal.

 

[Norm_The_Robot]

Why is my comparison unfair to those who have been legally “eliminated”. Isn’t the law the law? And isn’t justice supposed to be blind? “Just the fact ma’am.”

I would bet making a mix tape and handing it out to a friend would technically be a violation of copyrwrite law and hence be a crime. I think it is just unenforceable.

I bet if I made copies of my favorite DVD’s and started handing them out on the streets I would get stopped by the cops.

I am just kind of having fun with this argument but I think it really illustrates how arbitrary and big money beholden our legal system is. Anarchy is no good but neither is being micromanaged by bought off politicians and their puppet masters with the fat wallets.

 

[JamalChristophr]

Do you know what rationalization is, Norm?

 

[Joe_5859]

Why is my comparison unfair to those who have been legally “eliminated”. Isn’t the law the law? And isn’t justice supposed to be blind? “Just the fact ma’am.”

I would bet making a mix tape and handing it out to a friend would technically be a violation of copyrwrite law and hence be a crime. I think it is just unenforceable.

I bet if I made copies of my favorite DVD’s and started handing them out on the streets I would get stopped by the cops.

I am just kind of having fun with this argument but I think it really illustrates how arbitrary and big money beholden our legal system is. Anarchy is no good but neither is being micromanaged by bought off politicians and their puppet masters with the fat wallets.

Do you realize that your arguments could be used to justify breaking any law we feel like?

It’s easy to fall back on ambiguities about corrupt politicians and greedy businessmen. But those are all red herrings. Such arguments may assuage our conscience, but it’s not a justifiable reason to break the law. If we were talking about such people keeping bread from starving families, that would be altogether different. But no one needs unlimited access to free music at all times.

Look, I’m the first to admit that copyright laws (and the whole infrastructure of the entertainment industry) could use a major overhaul. But that doesn’t give me a right to do as I please.

 

[Norm_The_Robot]

Do you realize that your arguments could be used to justify breaking any law we feel like?

Exactly my point! So many laws are not rooted in common sense and morality… they are just about power, control and profit protection! The goverment kind of looses it’s moral authority when it shuts down a six year old lemonade stand due to zoning ristrictions, (name removed by moderator)oses asset forfieture laws, outlaws backyard vegetable gardens, strikes down the will of the people via the courts, etc etc etc etc etc No red herrings here, just symptoms of the disease.

 

[Joe_5859]

Exactly my point! So many laws are not rooted in common sense and morality… they are just about power, control and profit protection! The goverment kind of looses it’s moral authority when it shuts down a six year old lemonade stand due to zoning ristrictions, (name removed by moderator)oses asset forfieture laws, outlaws backyard vegetable gardens, strikes down the will of the people via the courts, etc etc etc etc etc No red herrings here, just symptoms of the disease.

These are the same types of arguments that people use to dismiss Christian morality. “Oh, the Old Testament is full of weird random laws that no one pays attention to anymore, so we can just disregard it all.”

I think you’re being a bit too cynical for your own good. Yes, copyright laws are about profit protection. But that’s not always a bad thing. It can be, but isn’t always. Why would any artist even bother making music if they had zero legal protection?

 

[Norm_The_Robot]

I think you’re being a bit too cynical for your own good. QUOTE]

You sound like my wife now!!! I see that great minds think alike!! LoL

Hey JamalChristophr I am not rationalizing…I am trying to make a larger point!

But old testament laws are not wierd random laws. I mean numbers, deuteronomy etc are pretty borring but if you can suffer though them you can see the logic behind the laws god gave moses.

And I do believe copywrite laws are important as well but I think that they can be taken into absurdity and be twisted to serve other intrests for which they were not intended. Like the government using the premise of copywrite infringment to exert an enormous amount of control over the internet, control which extends into realms that have nothing to do with streaming pirated movies and have more to do with stifling the freedom of speech that exists online that is preventing them from controling the narritive as they have been able to do in the past with print and network media.

There is a show I watch on VH1 called “that Metal Show” that is basicaly a talk show that revolves around heavy metal music. Per the host many of the guests are told they cannot perform any of their own music live on the show due to copywrite issues with the record labels, much to their confusion/frustration. Is it not absurd that copywrite laws prevent Ted Nugent from performing his own music that he wrote and recorded on a TV show if he wants!!!

 

[Joe_5859]

Joe 5859;12748644:

I think you’re being a bit too cynical for your own good.

You sound like my wife now!!! I see that great minds think alike!! LoL

Hey JamalChristophr I am not rationalizing…I am trying to make a larger point!

But old testament laws are not wierd random laws. I mean numbers, deuteronomy etc are pretty borring but if you can suffer though them you can see the logic behind the laws god gave moses.

And I do believe copywrite laws are important as well but I think that they can be taken into absurdity and be twisted to serve other intrests for which they were not intended. Like the government using the premise of copywrite infringment to exert an enormous amount of control over the internet, control which extends into realms that have nothing to do with streaming pirated movies and have more to do with stifling the freedom of speech that exists online that is preventing them from controling the narritive as they have been able to do in the past with print and network media.

There is a show I watch on VH1 called “that Metal Show” that is basicaly a talk show that revolves around heavy metal music. Per the host many of the guests are told they cannot perform any of their own music live on the show due to copywrite issues with the record labels, much to their confusion/frustration. Is it not absurd that copywrite laws prevent Ted Nugent from performing his own music that he wrote and recorded on a TV show if he wants!!!

Hey, I agree that it can get ridiculous. I am also consistently puzzled by the fact that copyright doesn’t expire until authors have been dead for 70 years. But it doesn’t bother me enough to actively try to change the system, so I try to respect the laws that are in place.

 

[mikekle]

Ive heard both sides of this argument many times, and imo, its the record companies fault for all this happening. I remember the days of cassette tapes with security on them so they could be ‘reproduced’ I believe CDs also had something like this when they first came out.

So, if the record labels and artists dont want their product stolen, maybe they need to release it in a form where people cannot steal it, just like they did with tapes and CDs, there are some very intelligent people out there today, I have no doubt someone out there could come up with something to prevent others from stealing music/ movies, etc.

 

[Norm_The_Robot]

So, if the record labels and artists dont want their product stolen, maybe they need to release it in a form where people cannot steal it, just like they did with tapes and CDs, there are some very intelligent people out there today, I have no doubt someone out there could come up with something to prevent others from stealing music/ movies, etc.

No. I have much confidence in the ingenuity and resourcefulness of a broke teenager. They always find a way!

 

[Operalan]

As an artist, I’m all for chips or whatever being inserted in recordings to keep them from being copied. Ultimately, it is the artists that are being ripped off (stolen from). They are not being compensated for their talent and work. And, it is wrong to record live performances by bringing devices into the theaters, arenas, etc. What’s more it is distracting to the artists. From the stage, we can see the little red lights that are on the devices. Those who make the recordings are distracting and stealing.

 

[Bulbasaur05]

Here is a valid “loophole” I think. I purchased a Coldplay album back in my military days and then I lost it after a van t-boned and totaled my truck. Technically I bought the property and “rights” to listen to the artist’s music. If I were in a band, and somebody lost my CD in a wreck, I would be fine with them ripping it off of YouTube or various internet sources.

Technically, you could argue it was a “backup” (which its legal to copy to create) that I made after the fact.

 

[Lion_IRC]

What if I check it out from a public library? Or what if I buy the CD used? Or what if my buddy has the CD I want but is sick of it so he gives it to me as a gift? The artist does not paid for any of these. Why would it be different? Is it a sin to borrow from the library?

Good examples.

No. I dont feel guilty reading second-hand newspapers and I dont feel the need to belatedly send $2 to the Herald Sun newspaper for their wonderful stories and half completed crossword puzzle.

No. I dont feel as if I am cheating advertisers out of any revenue by NOT watching their commercials which pay for free-to-air content on TV.

No. I dont feel guilty when buying perfectly legal electronic recording devices and using them for the exact purpose for which they were designed.

No. I dont feel bad if I copy a freely available CD from a free public library and listen to that song 4 or 5 times (before I get bored) rather than driving 4 or 5 times to the library and borrowing it 4 or 5 times - thereby preventing others from freely enjoying the same CD.

No. I dont feel guilty storing a free-to-air music video clip off the internet to watch or listen to later.

 

[Bulbasaur05]

Anyone have thoughts on the ethicality of ripping album you bought and lost in a car wreck?

 

[Joe_5859]

Anyone have thoughts on the ethicality of ripping album you bought and lost in a car wreck?

I don’t know. I don’t think I’d feel comfortable using a torrent site to download music regardless of the circumstances.

On the one hand, you purchased it already. If you had had the foresight to have the album backed up on your computer, there wouldn’t be an issue.

On the other hand, losing something due to accidents does not always and everywhere give us the right to access it again. If I lost a gallon of milk in a car accident, I cannot just go take one from the grocery store without paying for it again.

 

[Bulbasaur05]

I don’t know. I don’t think I’d feel comfortable using a torrent site to download music regardless of the circumstances.

On the one hand, you purchased it already. If you had had the foresight to have the album backed up on your computer, there wouldn’t be an issue.

On the other hand, losing something due to accidents does not always and everywhere give us the right to access it again. If I lost a gallon of milk in a car accident, I cannot just go take one from the grocery store without paying for it again.

Yeah, but you could make the argument that when you purchase music you are purchasing the right to listen to it “and its ownership.” If my macbook exploded when I got my new macbook I could still go to iTunes and download all the albums that were lost on my old laptop.

 

[mikekle]

Yeah, but you could make the argument that when you purchase music you are purchasing the right to listen to it “and its ownership.” If my macbook exploded when I got my new macbook I could still go to iTunes and download all the albums that were lost on my old laptop.

I see what you are saying, but I remember many times when I lost cassette tapes or Cds, and had to go out and buy it again, if I really liked it, didnt matter, because I felt it was worth it to purchase the same thing again, it seems people today dont feel this way, they feel once they have paid for something, it is theirs for LIFE, most things this would be true, but with cassettes, CDs, music today, cmon, its under $20, not really a big deal if you really like the artist, at least this is how I feel.

 

[Joe_5859]

Yeah, but you could make the argument that when you purchase music you are purchasing the right to listen to it “and its ownership.” If my macbook exploded when I got my new macbook I could still go to iTunes and download all the albums that were lost on my old laptop.

It does seem like a lot of the entertainment industry is trying to shift from a concept of owning the product to that of owning a license to that product. I’m not sure of what all the implications are for that or how far it can be taken.

If I buy a DVD or Blu-ray nowadays, most of the time it seems to come with an “ultraviolet” copy, which is really just the license to watch it digitally. But that doesn’t translate to all of my older DVDs. If I want the license to those, I have to bring my DVDs to Walmart and pay a couple dollars a piece. So I don’t think we can take for granted that because we bought some album at some point in our life that we own the license to it in perpetuity.

It does get confusing, at least to me. A lot has shifted over the past 15 years, and I’m not sure that everything has caught up yet.