Music and copyrights

[bbentrup]

Regarding YouTube, my non-authoritative opinion, and the one I’ve used in my personal life is not to use you-tube or file sharing sites for illegal copies of posted videos.

Here are the two cases where I am on the cutting edge of the moral law, but I think, ultimately, not sinning (unsure about the legality).

1. Copying movies from netflix onto my external hard drive for which I have already paid for in past years but the disc has since become corrupted.
2. Copying educational movies where I got a legal copy onto my computer from work for archival purposes, where I have since quit that job, and have them on archive still but have never used them since, in the hope that in my next job (unemployed currently), I will be able to use that same video series. If not, I will delete them. The pain being it took literally hours and hours to copy all the short movie files and I would hate to have wasted all the time again. In fact, if my next job doesn’t have them, I will most likely just buy those movies since they are highly educational and I want to use them.

If anyone thinks those two cases are immoral, I’d like to hear their thoughts - I’m somewhat less concerned about the legality of it.

 

[edwest2]

So Ed, you know copyright law? Could I ask you a slightly related question? What are the legal ramifications of something like youtube? (something else I used to do all the time and just quit) I’ve looked on the internet but everyone says “ask someone who knows copyright law”… And if a friend is listening to something on youtube and I hear/see some of it, am I an accomplice in the sin or a witness?

And I do have one question on word usage: is “copying” the same as “stealing”? For example if I like something an author wrote and I write, say, a paragraph down on a piece of paper is that stealing? Please don’t think I’m being ridiculous when I ask this. I am earnestly asking for help and sometimes I’m a bit overscrupulous…

And by the way, thank you for your answers.

Pax.

It is good to be scrupulous. As a Catholic, I am called to holiness. Before confession we must examine our conscience, right? And no, I don’t think I’m better than anyone else, but if I’m not serious about my faith, why remain a Catholic?

That said, if you search for things on youtube, you will notice that certain things have notices that read (as best as I can remember): Removed by copyright owner or removed by Warner Brothers, and similar. The artist ‘Prince,’ decided to remove all of his work from youtube. Of course, some people protested this since they felt entitled to see his work for free.

If you are watching something on youtube and you honestly do not know it is there illegally, I can honestly say you are not likely committing a sin but I generally watch less on youtube because, in some caes, it is obvious that people are stealing or hiding behind some excuse or just don’t know but don’t care either. I mean, how hard is it to ask the copyright holder, Hi, Can I put this on youtube? All they would need to do if they got permission is add a notice like: Reproduced by Permission of XYZ, you know?

No, copying a paragraph out of a book is not stealing if you are doing it for school or your own personal research. The same for copying at a library for school or research.

God knows your heart and your intentions.

Peace,
Ed

 

[JSSebastianoP]

It is good to be scrupulous. As a Catholic, I am called to holiness. Before confession we must examine our conscience, right? And no, I don’t think I’m better than anyone else, but if I’m not serious about my faith, why remain a Catholic?

Exactly. I’m coming out of being a “cafeteria Catholic” because I want to be serious, but as I like to say, it’s so much easier to commit a sin in the modern world…

If you are watching something on youtube and you honestly do not know it is there illegally, I can honestly say you are not likely committing a sin but I generally watch less on youtube because, in some caes, it is obvious that people are stealing or hiding behind some excuse or just don’t know but don’t care either. I mean, how hard is it to ask the copyright holder, Hi, Can I put this on youtube? All they would need to do if they got permission is add a notice like: Reproduced by Permission of XYZ, you know?

I also usually try to avoid youtube - my problem is when a friend or a relative says “hey, can you look at this” and I don’t know what to do… But yes - I have seen a couple of videos with a notice like that.

Thanks so much for your response, Ed. Technology makes the world harder instead of easier, I think…

Pax.

 

[edwest2]

Glad to help.

Technology is making it easier to deceive people. To create an atmosphere of anger and to promote very bad behavior.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Shredderbeam]

Incorrect. Making a copy of digital bits is stealing tangible property. If you have no permission, don’t do it. And ‘file sharing’ of copyright works is the new phrase for stealing.

Peace,
Ed

Stealing tangible property = removing the original from the possession of the owner. Copying digital information allows the original owner to keep the original copy. It would be like copying a sculpture.

 

[Holly3278]

To borrow a CD from the library and then copy it is to be stealing. Stealing is wrong. Don’t do this!

 

[FiliusDeiSum]

I think that some things must be considered here:

Theft is the taking of one’s acquired property and thus depriving one of its use. What we are dealing with here is illicit use.

By avoiding purchasing the music, one is avoiding paying the artist, and giving to Caesar (the government) what is his (taxes on the purchase).

However, the nature of this particular media complicates things. Given the ability to infinitely duplicate with relative losslessness music and video, one is not depriving another of its use, but is instead illicitly using a product, which is not necessarily stealing from an artist (as, for instance, there are many songs I would download and listen to but would never pay for, as I do not appreciate music to that extent). Therefore, I am doing a service to the artist by playing his music, whereas otherwise his music would not be played, and he would still not be getting paid.

This is not a full rationalisation, however, as there is still the governmental aspect of things. If file-sharing, a morally-innocent act in and of itself, is disallowed by the government, and one continues to do it, this would be sinful, as one is breaking ones government’s laws without moral cause. What this comes down to is not at all the idea of stealing (as it most certainly is not, as posited previously), but rather breaking one’s government’s laws pertaining to copyright. Otherwise, this is morally equivalent to a situation in which one does not steal bread, but finds a way to produce it without labor, thus depriving a baker of potential profits that he would not have realized in the first place, due to one’s inability or refusal to buy it from said baker.

My final reflection on this matter is a bit more abstract, and almost tangential, but I shall try to elaborate, nonetheless. If a toddler were to decree a law, and that toddler had no delegated authority, then that law would be foolish babble. Similarly, one must have the faculties and powers of government in order to make a law, and thus make it morally binding on a populace to follow. Legitimate governments derive from divine right, and as our nation is founded upon protestant and freemasonic ideals, having divorced itself from a heretical monarchy, which divorced itself from its valid source of legitimacy in the reformation, one could make the argument that our government lacks the necessary faculties for creating law, and in such period of interregnum we are thus not morally bound to adhere to its decrees. Additionally, as our government creates law based on political movements among the masses, and human nature is innately wounded and inclined to sin, then law in a democratic system is an abstract form of mob rule, which is not in line with the moral and natural law, and is therefore irrelevant. As such, one could argue that the governmental objection can be held invalid, on the basis of an invalid government.

It seems safest, however, to err on the side of legitimacy, even though democracy and Catholicism are inherently incompatible. I fear that I have tackled two issues here, and none thoroughly enough, but perhaps this best clarifies the state of things.

 

[TedDC]

Stealing tangible property = removing the original from the possession of the owner. Copying digital information allows the original owner to keep the original copy. It would be like copying a sculpture.

That may be correct from the legal standpoint; I believe the correct term for illegal copying is be “copyright infringement” rather than theft. But from a moral standpoint, it absolutely is theft, just as much as shoplifting an item of physical merchandise is theft.

True, you’re not depriving the owner of his possession, but you are depriving him of a benefit of that possession; namely, the profit he would receive from selling you a copy of his book, song, etc.

It’s a complex area of morality because there are some many possible scenarios. I can think of some situations where copying might violate the letter of the law but not otherwise be immoral, while in other cases, the action clearly violates both the law and morality. And some violations are worse than others in terms of the harm they cause.

My general rule is that I will not copy - either for personal use or for distribution - anything by a living author (or musician, painter, etc.) who expects to make a profit from selling his creation. That covers pretty much all current music, books, movies, etc. Making a backup copy doesn’t count, as long as it’s used strictly for that purpose.

I’m somewhat less concerned with items from which the copyright owner has already made his profit, and for which any additional profit would be an unexpected windfall - for example, old newspaper articles. I’m also not too concerned with items which were never sold for a profit in the first place, such as old catalogs or instruction manuals for obsolete products. And there’s one big condition to those exceptions: that I myself am not profiting from the material. If I make money from it, I have an absolute moral (as well as legal) obligation to share that money with the creator.

Anyway, that’s my take on the issue. In the interest of full disclosure, please be aware that I’ve been informed elsewhere on these forums that I am going to hell due to my disagreement with Church teaching on, um, self-gratification, so follow my advice at your own risk.

 

[jmcrae]

Stealing tangible property = removing the original from the possession of the owner. Copying digital information allows the original owner to keep the original copy. It would be like copying a sculpture.

If the only other way to own it would be to buy it from the original creator (and thus, he doesn’t have to go to work at MacDonald’s to keep his body and soul together) then, yes, making a copy is the same thing as stealing.

 

[TedDC]

If the only other way to own it would be to buy it from the original creator (and thus, he doesn’t have to go to work at MacDonald’s to keep his body and soul together) then, yes, making a copy is the same thing as stealing.

Yes, exactly. It’s that simple. You would be making use of something he created - the fruit of his labors - without compensating him.

 

[temperance_rose]

I’m kind of a better safe than sorry type. I personally would not copy the cd because it’s not mine. If I really wanted it I would either buy it, listen to the radio, listen to youtube… (Though I’m not always sure about youtube).

 

[JoshR]

I asked the Priest in confession today and he said if it is copyrighted it is stealing.

 

[anon48985940]

Hi I have wondered about this issue. I have been a fan of checking CD’s out of the library and then copying the files to my computer, sometimes burning a disc, and using them on my mp3 player, and I have done this for several years now. I’ve always known downloading stuff I didn;'t buy is stealing and wrong, but I wasn;t sure that copying from the library is. Now I think it actually is stealing and a sin, that copying the music with the sole intenetion of avoiding to ever buy it is just wrong. (keep in mind I only returned to the faith and trying to live a Catholic life since summer of '09) So, getting the CD and listening to it for the 2 weeks that I am allowed by library is fine, just not copying it to use “indefinitely”
I certainly would not do the same thing with books I get from the library.

Finally though, what clinched this issue for me was yesterday i was listening to “Catholic Answers Live” podcast, from January 29, 2010, with Q & A open forum with Jimmy Akin. A lady called in about copying CD’s from the library. He says that only if the music is in the ‘public domain’ is it ok to copy it. Ordinary commercial released cd’s would not be allowed to be copied (which for me is everything I have ever copied), basically because they have a right to how it is copied.

So, now I am in the process of trashing/deleting anything on my computer/ipod (and cd cases) that wasn;t purchased or given to me as a gift. (And I will have to be sure to bring this issue to my next confession!).

I have noticed however, that I would get really compulsive about ripping all this free music from the library (or downloading when I was doing that) and then I would have all these music files, but I would not really ‘enjoy’ them, because it was more about getting a bigger collection of music, thinking, “oh, this’ll be great to listen to later .” but then I just kept wanting to get more Not to mention wasting lots of time.

But now, I don;t have to worry about that anymore, I’ll just not worry about ripping music off from the library, and buy what I can afford, or just check it out of the library later. I always find I enjoy music more when I buy it.

The next question might be, is buying used cd’s books or movies considered bad, because I love buying used stuff…but that;s another thread.

 

[logic_oriented]

I’m curious about people’s thoughts regarding a related hypothetical. Instead of borrowing from the library, what if one were to illegally download an album, and then after a week either delete the files or purchase the music legally. Would that be wrong? My thought is that the potential profit for the artist both from the album sale and future ticket purchases far outweighs the negligible loss of the library having one fewer check out, and thus the tiniest bit less incentive to purchase another copy of the album.

To be clear, this hypothetical only covers direct downloading, or peer to peer with an upload ratio of zero (obviously there is harm to the artist if one is downloading via a peer to peer network with standard settings, thus helping others acquire the music as well).

 

[JSSebastianoP]

Hi I have wondered about this issue. I have been a fan of checking CD’s out of the library and then copying the files to my computer, sometimes burning a disc, and using them on my mp3 player, and I have done this for several years now. I’ve always known downloading stuff I didn;'t buy is stealing and wrong, but I wasn;t sure that copying from the library is. Now I think it actually is stealing and a sin, that copying the music with the sole intenetion of avoiding to ever buy it is just wrong. (keep in mind I only returned to the faith and trying to live a Catholic life since summer of '09) So, getting the CD and listening to it for the 2 weeks that I am allowed by library is fine, just not copying it to use “indefinitely”
I certainly would not do the same thing with books I get from the library.

Finally though, what clinched this issue for me was yesterday i was listening to “Catholic Answers Live” podcast, from January 29, 2010, with Q & A open forum with Jimmy Akin. A lady called in about copying CD’s from the library. He says that only if the music is in the ‘public domain’ is it ok to copy it. Ordinary commercial released cd’s would not be allowed to be copied (which for me is everything I have ever copied), basically because they have a right to how it is copied.

So, now I am in the process of trashing/deleting anything on my computer/ipod (and cd cases) that wasn;t purchased or given to me as a gift. (And I will have to be sure to bring this issue to my next confession!).

I have noticed however, that I would get really compulsive about ripping all this free music from the library (or downloading when I was doing that) and then I would have all these music files, but I would not really ‘enjoy’ them, because it was more about getting a bigger collection of music, thinking, “oh, this’ll be great to listen to later .” but then I just kept wanting to get more Not to mention wasting lots of time.

But now, I don;t have to worry about that anymore, I’ll just not worry about ripping music off from the library, and buy what I can afford, or just check it out of the library later. I always find I enjoy music more when I buy it.

The next question might be, is buying used cd’s books or movies considered bad, because I love buying used stuff…but that;s another thread.

Wow - that is pretty much my story in a nutshell - even coming back stronger to the Faith in summer '09. GOD Bless.

 

[anon48985940]

I’m curious about people’s thoughts regarding a related hypothetical. Instead of borrowing from the library, what if one were to illegally download an album, and then after a week either delete the files or purchase the music legally. Would that be wrong? My thought is that the potential profit for the artist both from the album sale and future ticket purchases far outweighs the negligible loss of the library having one fewer check out, and thus the tiniest bit less incentive to purchase another copy of the album.

To be clear, this hypothetical only covers direct downloading, or peer to peer with an upload ratio of zero (obviously there is harm to the artist if one is downloading via a peer to peer network with standard settings, thus helping others acquire the music as well).

Hmmmm…wouldn’t that be like stealing it from the store, then purchasing it later? OR maybe it’s like borrowing it from a friend (which I’ve gotten lots of music in the past that way, and never bought any of the albums)…

…either way, chances are, if ]I did that, I would probably end up not purchasing anything, and just rationalize having downloaded the thing and continue listening to the free download, because I’m broke and don;t want to buy it. That’s what happened to me when I would download stuff or rip from the library, I never saw the point in buying it, because I already had this good quality copy and already heard it. And even if I deleted it, chances are since I had heard it already, I wouldn’t buy it, to save money. But I didn’t feel it as being wrong at the time…
We’ll see though, since my recent “awakening” to the fact that my cd-ripping is wrong, and I really shouldn’;t be doing that! Maybe I’ll end up buying some of the albums I deleted…(not likely soon).

Then again, it stinks buying an album and having it be really bad, or not so hot (like norah jones new one, in my opinion)…

There is a quite a few of online streaming websites that let you hear music for free online without downloading, like I think Rhapsody, LaLa, Songza, Pandora and I think there are some others…or even the band;'s websites, or myspace pages have ways to hear an album or some of their music for free, without illegal downloads…I think that might be the best option for us, since it;s free and legal…
Now I will have to take my own advice!

 

[jmcrae]

The next question might be, is buying used cd’s books or movies considered bad, because I love buying used stuff…but that;s another thread.

No, because it is still one user to each book or CD - you. The person you bought it from is no longer using it, any more.

 

[terminated007]

I think that some things must be considered here:

Theft is the taking of one’s acquired property and thus depriving one of its use. What we are dealing with here is illicit use.

By avoiding purchasing the music, one is avoiding paying the artist, and giving to Caesar (the government) what is his (taxes on the purchase).

However, the nature of this particular media complicates things. Given the ability to infinitely duplicate with relative losslessness music and video, one is not depriving another of its use, but is instead illicitly using a product, which is not necessarily stealing from an artist (as, for instance, there are many songs I would download and listen to but would never pay for, as I do not appreciate music to that extent). Therefore, I am doing a service to the artist by playing his music, whereas otherwise his music would not be played, and he would still not be getting paid.

This is not a full rationalisation, however, as there is still the governmental aspect of things. If file-sharing, a morally-innocent act in and of itself, is disallowed by the government, and one continues to do it, this would be sinful, as one is breaking ones government’s laws without moral cause. What this comes down to is not at all the idea of stealing (as it most certainly is not, as posited previously), but rather breaking one’s government’s laws pertaining to copyright. Otherwise, this is morally equivalent to a situation in which one does not steal bread, but finds a way to produce it without labor, thus depriving a baker of potential profits that he would not have realized in the first place, due to one’s inability or refusal to buy it from said baker.

My final reflection on this matter is a bit more abstract, and almost tangential, but I shall try to elaborate, nonetheless. If a toddler were to decree a law, and that toddler had no delegated authority, then that law would be foolish babble. Similarly, one must have the faculties and powers of government in order to make a law, and thus make it morally binding on a populace to follow. Legitimate governments derive from divine right, and as our nation is founded upon protestant and freemasonic ideals, having divorced itself from a heretical monarchy, which divorced itself from its valid source of legitimacy in the reformation, one could make the argument that our government lacks the necessary faculties for creating law, and in such period of interregnum we are thus not morally bound to adhere to its decrees. Additionally, as our government creates law based on political movements among the masses, and human nature is innately wounded and inclined to sin, then law in a democratic system is an abstract form of mob rule, which is not in line with the moral and natural law, and is therefore irrelevant. As such, one could argue that the governmental objection can be held invalid, on the basis of an invalid government.

It seems safest, however, to err on the side of legitimacy, even though democracy and Catholicism are inherently incompatible. I fear that I have tackled two issues here, and none thoroughly enough, but perhaps this best clarifies the state of things.

Well said!

 

[terminated007]

Would I get any guarantee of attaining my desired satisfaction if I buy any of these products?

The ideology today behind copyright/patent seems very stupid for me. You see people going to court everyday. This one saying that the other stoled the idea from him and human judges get to decide on who is right.
Somebody said in his post that the Happy Birthday song is also copyright.

So if you have an issue with file sharing and or copyright, make sure you never sing Happy Birthday without obtaining permission from the owner.

And if you think that pressing the delete button on your computer actually deletes the stuff you intend to delete, then know that your computer manufacturer forget to tell you something.
So if you get stuff from the library, copy and later delete you wouldn’t be able to prove to a human judge that your intentions were different from the person who actually got the same stuff via file sharing and never deleted them.

 

[Greg27]

Personally I think the deliberate infringement of a private IP right would constitute stealing. But I think there would be a difference between downloading and hearing one song and copying and uploading thousands of songs and then selling these, depriving the rightful owner(s) of income and profits from their rights. I think you should be very careful about violating IP rights since the courts (particularly in the US) have been willing to impose very large awards of general and punitive damages and accounts of profits (an equitable remedy to make people who make illicit profits from civil wrongs to disgorge their profits back to the wronged party) on people who make illicit copies, uploads, or downloads of copyrighted or patented material, even on fairly ‘ordinary’ people.