If it’s a paid service, it’s almost certain to be legal, disregarding scams. Free services for paid content are usually illegal if you don’t buy the content elsewhere (depending on the intellectual property laws of your country). I have kept from making a pronouncement about the morality of torrenting in most situations, and only pronounced on legality in the UK (and US).You do not always have to pay for music to legally listen to music as there are free, legal music download websites and free, legal music streaming websites, but you have to be careful the website is legal so look at the terms and conditions before downloading or streaming any music and if you want to use music on say a youtube video, look at the terms and conditions of each song before using because the song owner may not give permission to use song.
bandcamp.com offers many songs for free or you can put the amount you would like to give for song or album.
Actually, the moral action would be to duplicate the medication to cure malarials and other diseased individuals, if the inventor demanding on selling it for exorbitant levels of profit, as modern pharmaceutical companies do. Capitalism isn’t part of Christianity, no matter how much we’re used to it. It may be illegal to replicate the medicine in certain countries, but, by replicating it (disregarding that the replicator would be the biggest possible technological breakthrough by humanity), you would be reducing the inventor’s profit, but saving lives. Lives are more important than profit as an essentially absolute rule.Imagine this: You sell your home and your business. You invest the money in a new medicine. It can cure several diseases such as malaria and diarrhea: the two biggest killers in the world. Your profit: billions of dollars.
Somebody invents the duplicator. Star Trek device becomes real. Your medicine becomes duplicated all over the world. People are cured. You are back to flipping burgers because somebody torrented your medicine.
There is no justice in that because it is stealing. Torrenting is evil because it deprives the owner of a product of his just due. Why is this discussion even occurring?
I see your point, but I would pick a different analogy. Intellectual property rights in the field of life-saving medicines are not as clear cut as in other areas. It wouldn’t be moral for someone to guard their intellectual property in this realm at the expense of other people’s lives.Imagine this: You sell your home and your business. You invest the money in a new medicine. It can cure several diseases such as malaria and diarrhea: the two biggest killers in the world. Your profit: billions of dollars.
Somebody invents the duplicator. Star Trek device becomes real. Your medicine becomes duplicated all over the world. People are cured. You are back to flipping burgers because somebody torrented your medicine.
There is no justice in that because it is stealing. Torrenting is evil because it deprives the owner of a product of his just due. Why is this discussion even occurring?
???Torrenting is not morally wrong if what you obtain is free and open source, shareware, or unfree media which you already have a right to the use of through previous acts. Some examples would be the torrenting of TV shows (including HBO, etc. if you pay for cable), films (if you have the DVD or have seen it at the cinema), …
The while idea of “intellectual property” is completely wrong.I see your point, but I would pick a different analogy. Intellectual property rights in the field of life-saving medicines are not as clear cut as in other areas. It wouldn’t be moral for someone to guard their intellectual property in this realm at the expense of other people’s lives.
I don’t disagree with those criticisms. I like your description of “intellectual property” as the fruit of intellectual labor. That description makes more sense to me.The while idea of “intellectual property” is completely wrong.
What we are talking about here is intellectual labor and how it should be it should be compensated. Lastly, artists, scientists, inventors, musicians &c do not “create” they discover.
It’s interesting to me that patents for technology have a fairly short life and everyone recognises this spurs creativity and innovation. So why have we allowed copyright of literary works to be extended (effectively) forever?
Someone mentioned a “duplicator”. I read an SF story long ago where an alien race tests primitives (us) by giving them a matter duplicator to see if they will be capable of dealing with an economy of abundance. Has anyone else read it, remember the author/title?
And yet the Church has silently accepted these concepts in the West and not spoken out against them; our only conclusion is that Intellectual Property laws are just, moral laws and need to be obeyed.The while idea of “intellectual property” is completely wrong.
What we are talking about here is intellectual labor and how it should be it should be compensated. Lastly, artists, scientists, inventors, musicians &c do not “create” they discover.
Absolutely not.And yet the Church has silently accepted these concepts in the West and not spoken out against them; our only conclusion is that Intellectual Property laws are just, moral laws and need to be obeyed.
That’s correct. Why do you claim to disagree with me? I did not mean to say that IP laws are part of the Moral Law, but only that they are just and not immoral.The Church recognises the right to private property but leaves determination about so-called intellectual property is a matter of positive law. So if I move to a country where torrenting is legal (are there any?), it is not sinful.
That was the same article I read. Definitely on target with Catholic teachingsI found this article to be quite interesting and detailed regarding intellectual property. It’s written from a Catholic perspective.
Modern Concerns of Theft Concerning Digital Media and Intellectual Property
blog.nonpeccabis.com/2012/12/modern-concerns-of-theft-concerning.html