New Question about Software Piracy

[Digitonomy]

You raise an interesting question that I have not heard before.

It is not clear in what manner Jesus produced the loaves and fish. If we accept that conservation of matter applied, the simplest thing would be for the fish to disappear from the depths of the Sea of Gallilee and appear in the baskets. On the other hand, if he “copied” the fish and loaves, such that the fish were genetically identical to the originals, then we have a rather analagous situation to the software copying issue. The fishmongers are getting cheated out of legitimate earnings by Jesus’s actions.

A couple differences, however:

1. I believe the immorality of copying is mostly due to the laws in force at present. Our society has chosen (wisely, I think) to encourage and reward innovation and creativity by protecting the profits that can be made from such innovation. Another society might unwisely decide that works that people create should be freely shared for the benefit of all (without the copyright restrictions that in our society sometimes limit availability, raise prices, or even prevent distribution altogether). If you live in a society like the latter, then I don’t think it would be immoral to copy and distribute works. I don’t think there were copyright or distribution laws in effect at the Sea of Gallilee in Jesus’s day.
2. The fishmongers didn’t really have rights to the specific genetically identifiable fish. The were simply selling their product, and all fish of a type were considered the same. Jesus is like Microsoft (never thought I’d say that!), along he comes offering equivalent product for free. The Netscape fishmongers may not like it, but Jesus is both benefitting the public, and strengthening his market position. (MS had some antitrust problems regarding that last goal).

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Dr. Colossus:

I have a tough time looking at this issue objectively, because for whatever reasons I didn’t even consider it as a moral (as opposed to legal) issue before I visited these Forums. So I need some (name removed by moderator)ut. I understand the basic moral arguments against it, but I have a specific question:

All the arguments I have seen relate to the 7th Commandment. But all the definitions of the 7th Commandments I have seen, such as the Aquinas, Trent, Baltimore, Pius X and New Catechisms define stealing as the unjust privation of goods from another. Everyone knows that copying does not deprive the owner of something, so the argument is made that it is depriving the original software company of profit that is their due.

However, the original copy had to be paid for. Thus an item that was produced was sold at a fair price. Is it not the right of the new owner to do what he wishes with it? Even make copies and give them away? (I don’t argue that selling copied software would be wrong). Now before anyone posts an answer, I would ask them to consider this: How would giving away copies of software differ fundamentally from Christ giving away copies of bread and fish to 5,000 men?

P.S. I ask for charity in your responses. I don’t need to be scolded for trying to rationalize something. I’m just trying to find an answer I can understand and agree with.

The Rabbi who brought me back into the Church was a musician who lost a lot of royalties due to Software Piracy. That made it harder for him to feed his family and do his charitable work.

If it weren’t for him, I wouldn’t be here.

I know from how upset my Rabbi and his friends and others were when they saw their checks shrunk as a result of this that people ARE HURT when you make copies to distribute copies for free without paying them their royalties on those copies.

So, you can’t hide behind the excuse that no one is hurt.

And, NO, This is in NO way comparable to Jesus creating food out of thin air to feed 5000 people. Remember, the Gospel account says that the nearest town where food could have been bought was a long ways away, and that some would have fainted on the way.

Are you claiming that people would faint do to starvation if they don’t get one of your CD’s?

Jesus also performed the miracle as proof of who he was and as a way to draw people to himself.

Are you claiming that you need to prove something about yourself to the people you’re giving these pirated CD’s to?

And, May I ask, why are you trying to justify flauting Church teaching?

I don’t like large Corporations any more than you do, but I do know that most artists SURVIVE on their residuals/royalties.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Dr. Colossus:

But is a system of commerce based on licensing of goods to the extent that the physical media is owned but the information contained therin is not (a distinction which cannot be discerned except psychologically) in keeping with Catholic social justice? If it is not, then we are not obliged to follow the law under pain of sin.

It is a sin against Social Justice to STEAL from people who write the software or the music, etc. and who rely on the residuals and the royalties to feed their families.

We don’t get to pick and choose which of God’s laws we obey on this issue, just because we want to save some money, or because we want to stick it to some Greedy Industrialists!

Your reasoning was the original reasoning behind the original NAPSTER, and it cost a friend a LOT of money, and hurt his family a LOT!

Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Michael Welter:

Timidity put it quite eloquently. The bottom line is that it IS a sin to break the civil laws. Read Romans 13. It is very clear. Civil laws are passed under authority from God. To disobey civil law is to disobey God. As a musician, and the owner of a recording studio (non profit), I can tell you, it truly does hurt music industry workers when people make copies of music without paying for it.

Thank you, Michael.

I know someone I owe at least part of my salvation to who was hurt by the Piracy Dr. Colossus describes.

That’s why I got involved.

God Bless, and I hope you make up the income people like him cost you.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Benedictus:

The point is that if I buy a CD, why can’t I do what I want with it? Am I technically stealing if I give a copy of it to a friend? I don’t think so; although, it could be argued that I’m still violating the 7th Commandment.

Personally, I believe that most EULAs are not compatible with Catholic social teaching, but I’m not suggesting that you should feel free to download whatever you want via Bit Torrent or whatnot.

You’re torturing Catholic Social Teaching. The Catholic Church teaches us to obey the Law of the Land, which, in this case, has provided for the EULA’s you’re remonstrating against.

In this case, the Catholic Social Teaching must be said to be on the side of the men and women who are writing the software and creating the music, and who are relying on royalties from the sale of the same to feed their families.

Those are the people you’re stealing from, and the 7th Commandment still overrules and overrides both of our definitions of Catholic Social Teaching!

Regarding GTA - Why on earth would you fill you mind with that unadulterated garbage and encouragement to SIN?

Blessings.

In Him, Michael

 

[All4lifetoo]

It seems to me that everyone is overlooking the fact that the owner of property has the right to sell some, but not all of his property rights.

If I design and build a chair, for example, I may build 20 of them and sell them. When I sell them, I am selling the object itself, not the design of the object. I retain the ownership of the design and I alone am entitled to build more of the same design. Those who bought the chairs from me have the right to the ownership of the objects but not of the design. They can dispose of the objects any way they want to. They can resell them for more or less than they paid for them, or they could destroy them, if they so desire. What they cannot do, morally, is copy them and sell the copies. They don’t own the design because I never sold them the design.

The design has its own value that could be calculated from the estimated number of sales of chairs that could reasonably be built and sold during the products expected utility lifecycle. If one wanted to buy the right to copy the design, the value one should pay would have to be based upon this calculation.

The right to the design is not given to me by the law. It is a natural right due to me by virtue of the fact that I am the designer. Imitation may be the best form of flattery, but I don’t want to be flattered. I want to be paid. The law merely recognizes this natural right and protects it.

To answer the moral question, “Is it stealing?” to copy this and sell or give away the copy,one must answer the question, “What did the owner intend to sell to me in the first place?” If the owner did not intend to sell the design to me then it is stealing to use the design to make copies for my own purposes. The price that I paid for the object is not near the value of the design and so I haven’t paid for the right to use the design to copy the object.

Eventually, the owner will die and the design will pass into the public domain, but until then, the owner is due to be paid for the design.

 

[marcadam]

Dr. Colossus:

All the arguments I have seen relate to the 7th Commandment. But all the definitions of the 7th Commandments I have seen, such as the Aquinas, Trent, Baltimore, Pius X and New Catechisms define stealing as the unjust privation of goods from another. Everyone knows that copying does not deprive the owner of something, so the argument is made that it is depriving the original software company of profit that is their due.

I tend to think of it not as a stealing issue, but a bearing false witness issue. When installing the software, you agreed to an EULA that had provisions against piracy, among other things. Turning around a flouting this agreement is quite simply lying.

Moreover, it is not civil disobedience as some on this thread seem to think, even if you do believe the EULA to be “immoral.” This underhanded maneuver does not qualify as civil disobedience in the least, since such requires complete openness in defiance of authority: IOW, to qualify as civil disobedience, you would have personally notify to software licenser (and perhaps the press, if you wanted to make a stir) of your intent to disregard their legal standing. Doing it in secret isn’t anything but a crime.

Now, let’s look at the morality of the thing itself. Well, duh, people! Time, energy, creativity and risk went into producing that software, or music, or movie, and probably much moreso than you think. Don’t these efforts deserve remuneration? Moreover, the thing itself clearly has value: why else would you want it? Do you really believe that you are entitled to it without exchanging anything that you value, like a few bucks? C’mon. If you think the price is too high, don’t buy it. Also, newsflash: part of the cost of that game, CD, or DVD is covering losses due to piraters like yourself. So, here’s my thank you for driving up the costs for the rest of us.

You can’t just say, “well, I just don’t think intellectual property squares with Catholic moral theology,” as though it were just a matter of opinion. The fact of the matter is, given the state of teh law and current interpretation of said teachings, it is you who has the burden of proof.

So, go ahead and write a book about it. But don’t be too alarmed when it doesn’t sell because I decided to scan the whole thing and post it up on a website.

 

[marcadam]

All4lifetoo:

It seems to me that everyone is overlooking the fact that the owner of property has the right to sell some, but not all of his property rights.

…

Head of nail, meet hammer. Perfectly put.

 

[Daniel_Kane]

As a consultant who deals with his own intellectual property, I am a bit sensitive to this. I am not in the software industry but I do “sell” my work. My work has intrinsic value because of my education and experience. Software and music have similar intrinsic values.

Morally, it seems to me that software, music CDs, etc. are like books. You buy the book and you can mostly do what you want. You can read it and loan it out (not copy it), you can even re-sell it. What is morally wrong is to copy it and give (or sell) it to 100 friends, or even one.

If you take the software off your computer, it seems that you may morally give it away. You contracted voluntarily to use the software for one computer. Otherwise, one deprives the developer or musician of their right to sell their product to others. I think that depriving the creator of the software, etc. of the pay they want for the product is a form of stealing. The one who gives away or receives a copy profits unjustly from the work of another.
Many of the catechisms quoted do not address intellectual property because it did not exist per se. But I bet if I scan and post the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the New American Bible on my www site, even with the best intention of Catholic Evangelization, I will get a call from the American Bishop’s Lawyer and justly so, because if I copy and use without permission, I hijacked the intellectual work of another for my personal gain.

 

[marcadam]

Daniel Kane:

But I bet if I scan and post the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the New American Bible on my www site, even with the best intention of Catholic Evangelization, I will get a call from the American Bishop’s Lawyer and justly so, because if I copy and use without permission, I hijacked the intellectual work of another for my personal gain.

Really? I would be surprised if these works weren’t in the public domain. I could see getting calls from Ignatius Press for photocopying their latest release, though.

 

[Digitonomy]

All4lifetoo, I have to take issue with your implication that protection of intellectual property is part of natural law. If you have anything other than your own belief that this is so, I would be very interested to read this.

It is my belief, as I stated above, that copyright protection and similar laws are not natural rights, but simply a very wise approach to promote and reward creativity in a capitalist society.

Let’s take a look at a much smaller society - a family. Which is usually not strictly speaking capitalist Suppose there is some chore, or some magic trick, where I come up with a clever and efficient innovation. I don’t want you, my big brother, to know how to do it, because I like being able to finish the chore before you, or I like the notoriety of being the only one that can perform the trick.

Once you are able to figure out my technique, there is nothing “wrong” with you making use of it. I can cry “Mom, he’s doing my trick.” Mom may stop you just to preserve the peace, but not because you have no right to do it. Natural law certainly applies to families, but it simply does not automatically protect the exclusive rights of innovators to their innovations.

I anticipate the objection, “those are just kids, not capable of making these decisions or entitled to protection without consent of the parents.” But apply it to adult siblings: if I come up with my own trademark approach to shooting baskets, or shoveling snow, etc, you’re entitled to copy my technique, even if it makes me sore at you. In written or sung works, most people would be a bit more reticent about copying their sibling without consent. I think this is partly because it just looks lame, and partly because we have an understanding of how civil law applies in the outside world that colors our attitudes toward these kinds of works in the more insular world of the family.

But looking at kids again, if a natural law that copying is wrong is written in our hearts, I certainly haven’t seen any evidence of it. Kids are constantly copying and imitating each other in words and actions.

To sum up: copyright and similar protection for intellectual property is not intrinsic to natural law. Rather, it is a function of civil law, and is appropriate for our capitalist economy. We are obligated by social contract to obey the laws of the government. However, it would be perfectly moral, though stupid, for copying without consent to be legal.

 

[All4lifetoo]

All4lifetoo, I have to take issue with your implication that protection of intellectual property is part of natural law. If you have anything other than your own belief that this is so, I would be very interested to read this.

I can not give you a reference that explicitly mentions intellectual property in discussion of natural law, but I can say that natural law does not exclude any particular types of property from its coverage.

Pius X in his Motu Proprio of 18 Dec., 1903, laid down the following two principles for the guidance of all Catholics:

• (1) “Unlike the beast, man has on earth not only the right of use, but a permanent right of ownership; and this is true not only of those things which are consumed in their use, but also of those which are not consumed by their use”;
• (2) “Private property is under all circumstances, be it the fruit of labour or acquired by conveyance or donation, a natural right, and everybody may make such reasonable disposal of it as he thinks fit.”

newadvent.org/cathen/12462a.htm

In my example of the chair, there is no difference of someone breaking in to my shop and stealing the plans to make and sell the chair, (if that is the only copy of my plan then the magnitude of the crime is greater but not its nature), and someone using a chair that I sold them to reproduce the chair and to sell the reproductions. The only difference is the form of the design, one on paper, the other in wood. Only I have the right to use my design unless i give or sell that right to others. My selling of the chairs that I make does not mean that I am selling my right to the design. The design of the chair is the fruit of my mental labour, and I have not sold it. The actual chair is the fruit of my physical labour, and I have sold that.

Regarding your example of children and the development of a technique accomplish a task quicker, indeed the designer of the technique does own it regardless of whether he is able to protect his property right in it.

Manufacturing techniques are patented all the time. These techniques give a particular person or company the ability to produce unique products or to produce products in a unique way that makes them more valuable. The law recognizes and protects the natural right of an individual to benefit from the fruit of his mental labour in developing such techniques.

There is a period of time after which the technique passes to the public domain. This is equivalent to changing from private property to community property. No one would try to stop someone from making a generic chair today, but they would try to stop someone from making a designer chair that is new on the market. The generic chair design is community property and anyone can use it. The designer chair is not community property.

Natural law covers all private property and that includes intellectual private property.

 

[Benadam]

If the natural law were the law of society, it’s resources would be distributed according to need. Possession over what one produces would be unnecessary as would ownership of ones skills that produced them. Concern for personal needs would not be necessary and wouldn’t arise unless they became a threat to fulfilling ones purpose.

not applicable but a target to guide.

 

[Dr.Colossus]

Regarding your example of children and the development of a technique accomplish a task quicker, indeed the designer of the technique does own it regardless of whether he is able to protect his property right in it.

Manufacturing techniques are patented all the time. These techniques give a particular person or company the ability to produce unique products or to produce products in a unique way that makes them more valuable. The law recognizes and protects the natural right of an individual to benefit from the fruit of his mental labour in developing such techniques.

Patents only apply to making something for sale. Someone who wanted to copy a chair design (by looking at an original, not stealing the blueprints) for his own use or to give it away would not be prevented by current copyright law. The analogy does not fit the issue of software.

Pius X in his Motu Proprio of 18 Dec., 1903, laid down the following two principles for the guidance of all Catholics:

• (1) “Unlike the beast, man has on earth not only the right of use, but a permanent right of ownership; and this is true not only of those things which are consumed in their use, but also of those which are not consumed by their use”;
• (2) “Private property is under all circumstances, be it the fruit of labour or acquired by conveyance or donation, a natural right, and everybody may make such reasonable disposal of it as he thinks fit.”

Ok, now we’re getting some real meat to chew on. The closest this comes to addressing the software issue is “permanent right of ownership…of those [things] which are not consumed by their use”. However, this is regarding things, not intellectual property. So it would apply to say a software CD, which is sold and becomes the private property of the consumer, who “may make such reasonable disposal of it as he thinks fit.” In other words, he has right to do with the CD what he wants. It seems to me that this would include copying it, unless there is a prescript against it elsewhere (i.e. civil law).

So the question still boils down to whether or not civil law in this case is just or unjust (since it would appear that otherwise a consumer would have complete right to use the software as he saw fit, short of selling it), and how we as Catholics are to respond to it. The argument was made earlier that “congress seems to think it’s good”. Well, let’s throw this kind of reasoning out right now, because our government seems to think abortion is fine, too. The better argument was that Catholics may only disobey the law:

when a law is contrary to the demands of the moral order, or
when a law is contrary to the fundamental rights of persons, or
when a law is contrary the teachings of the Gospel.

So let’s focus on that.

(continued…)

 

[Dr.Colossus]

(continued)

The law does not seem to be contrary to the moral order (i.e. it is not immoral for me not to copy the software), nor the Gospel specifically. However:

Is the law contrary to the fundamental rights of persons?

Possibly. The law places restrictions on the right of ownership of a legitimately purchased piece of merchandise. It is inarguably the right of the original manufacturer to retain the ability to make and sell his product. But it is not the right of the manufacturer to be guaranteed that his product will sell. Going back to the chair analogy, if I buy (or even see) a patented chair in a store and figure out how to make one, I may do so legally so long as I don’t sell it. I may even make as many as I want and give them away. This may hurt the sales of the original chair, but it would not be immoral or illegal, because in a capitalistic society there is no guarantee that people must buy the chair from a manufacturer (actually, that would be a form of monopoly, which is illegal).

 

[ktm]

Traditional Ang:

It is a sin against Social Justice to STEAL from people who write the software or the music, etc. and who rely on the residuals and the royalties to feed their families.

This is one of the best arguments against stealing others’ intellectual property I have seen in some time. Well said!

People seem to forget the Golden Rule. Put yourself in the place of the musician, author, software engineer, whatever. Say you spent 3 years of your life writing a book that you think people would benefit from. You put in many hours every week, sometimes to the detriment of your family life. Just as your book is about to be published, some idiot at the publishing office steals a copy of your book and starts duplicating it himself, distributing copies of it to thousands of his friends “for free”. Now all these people have a copy of your hard work and you get nothing for it.

When one buys a book, CD, DVD, software, etc., you are paying primarily for the right to gain some benefit from the IP. A blank CD or DVD costs pennies. When you buy a DVD, are you paying for the medium on which the movie is imprinted? Of course not – you are paying for the time, effort, expertise, salaries, etc. of all those involved in producing the DVD.

I can’t believe this is even a question in some people’s minds. Try writing a book or a long piece of software (as I have). “It’s hard work,” as our President would say. That’ll change your outlook pretty quickly, I guarantee.

 

[Benedictus]

A few points:

I find the term “intellectual property” to be somewhat biased or “loaded.” IP can apply to many different endeavors, many of which are not closely related. I like to avoid using the term with respect to software and algorithms because once I’ve started using the term, I’ve already lost one battle. Think of the term “abortion rights opponents.” I don’t describe myself as being an opponent of abortion rights, I describe myself as pro-life. Similarily, I’m pro-freedom-of-information or pro-free-flow-of-ideas.

The problem with many EULAs is that they are destructive. They control my use of something that I possess. It is not wrong for someone to desire just compensation for one’s work, but it is wrong to use destructive means to enrich oneself. Such EULAs are destructive because they take away my rights.

One might object that copying a program is similar to copying a book. I counter that they are different. A program is different than a book because a program is something that is used. A program is a tool. Furthermore, a program (typically) consists of both source code in a human-readable format (a language such as C) as well as executable code.

In a sense, a program is more like a recipe, which cannot be copyrighted under U.S. (and I think International) law. A recipe, like a program, is a set of instructions for doing something. I can take a recipe out of a cookbook and modify and/or redistribute it as I please; however, I should cite the original source of the recipe.

 

[Benedictus]

ktm:

People seem to forget the Golden Rule. Put yourself in the place of the musician, author, software engineer, whatever.

For the record, I write software for a living, and, like most programmers, I don’t write commercial software. Instead, I write software to fit a specific need–to accomplish a certain task. Almost all of the software I write is free (as in free speech) and is distributed under the GNU General Public License.

I love it when people redistribute the software I write. I like it even more when they adapt it to their needs. Hopefully they share their changes with me, but they don’t have to explicitly let me know what they are doing.

 

[Benedictus]

Traditional Ang:

Regarding GTA - Why on earth would you fill you mind with that unadulterated garbage and encouragement to SIN?

I think you misread what I was saying. I have never played GTA and don’t intend ever to play it.

 

[Dr.Colossus]

ktm:

This is one of the best arguments against stealing others’ intellectual property I have seen in some time. Well said!

Read my original post. If the original owner still posesses what he had originally then it is not stealing. I’m not saying whether or not it would still be wrong (that’s what this whole thread will hopefully help explain) but if it is wrong it falls under another sin or commandment.

People seem to forget the Golden Rule. Put yourself in the place of the musician, author, software engineer, whatever. Say you spent 3 years of your life writing a book that you think people would benefit from. You put in many hours every week, sometimes to the detriment of your family life. Just as your book is about to be published, some idiot at the publishing office steals a copy of your book and starts duplicating it himself, distributing copies of it to thousands of his friends “for free”. Now all these people have a copy of your hard work and you get nothing for it.

I have not forgotten the Golden Rule. I work as a programmer (in web development) and a graphic designer for a living. I am very familiar with IP and what I believe my rights are. I do not believe that it is my right to sell a program or piece of art but include a clause that says I didn’t really sell it in the first place. To me, that would be dishonest.

When one buys a book, CD, DVD, software, etc., you are paying primarily for the right to gain some benefit from the IP. A blank CD or DVD costs pennies. When you buy a DVD, are you paying for the medium on which the movie is imprinted? Of course not – you are paying for the time, effort, expertise, salaries, etc. of all those involved in producing the DVD.

When you buy anything you are paying for the right to gain benefit from IP. Anything that has been designed is only beneficial because of how it is put together. But I can morally and legally build anything that I duplicate from somethign else, even if it is copyrighted, so long as I don’t sell it as my own invention. There is a double-standard with software, music, even books, that I do not believe is right. The standard came about when people realized that they weren’t makeing as much money as they could in a more restrictive environment. In their greed, they sought to limit the rights of ownership of a product which they sold.