Restitution for downloading music?

[james_neville]

I hope this is the right section for this post. if not forgive me.

Over the years i have downloaded music, from which I now understand it to be, illegal sources.

I was wondering if i haven’t listened to a large proportion of the songs that i downloaded illegally and i just deleted them, would i need to make restitution for these since i can’t simply return the items?

Also being at University and having a part time job, i dont really have the funds to repay over $6000 in music so what should i do?

Also i’m not quite sure which ones were purchased on itunes and CD’s and which ones were illegally added.

I have only in the last little while discovered the concept of restitution so i may not entirely understand what it is i need to do. Does a person need to make restitution for things which they were unaware were wrong at the time, like in my case since i didn’t know that what i was doing was stealing (since it happened from a young age)

Thanks for your responses in advanced!!!

 

[japhy]

I would:

1. vow never again to obtain music illegally,
2. dissuade others from obtaining music illegally (let them know it’s wrong),
3. donate to an organization that helps budding musicians,
4. consider removing those songs I am certain I obtained illegally.

 

[garn9173]

I hope this is the right section for this post. if not forgive me.

Over the years i have downloaded music, from which I now understand it to be, illegal sources.

I was wondering if i haven’t listened to a large proportion of the songs that i downloaded illegally and i just deleted them, would i need to make restitution for these since i can’t simply return the items?

Also being at University and having a part time job, i dont really have the funds to repay over $6000 in music so what should i do?

Also i’m not quite sure which ones were purchased on itunes and CD’s and which ones were illegally added.

I have only in the last little while discovered the concept of restitution so i may not entirely understand what it is i need to do. Does a person need to make restitution for things which they were unaware were wrong at the time, like in my case since i didn’t know that what i was doing was stealing (since it happened from a young age)

Thanks for your responses in advanced!!!

You really need to check with someone in your own country if the sources you downloaded music from is legal or not. What may be legal in one country is illegal in another.

 

[pewpew]

Downloading music =/= stealing proper. It’s illegal over there in the US, and can be argued to be an injustice towards the musicians (one examination of conscience from the US I use even lists “copyright violation” as grave matter), hence the simplification “piracy is stealing”, however, I don’t believe it requires restitution.

 

[Timothysis]

Contrary to many opinions here, downloading music is not the same as theft. Theft is physically taking something that does not belong to you.

At best, downloading music may be unethical but it is no more stealing that borrowing a book, movie, magazine or cd from a friend and not giving anything for the experience.

Would you equate borrowing a book from the library instead of buying it at a book store to be theft? The writer, editors and publishers do not make a cent from the library, yet we accept the practice. Everyday you can go to the library and read today’s newspaper for free, along with current magazines. You can even check out cds and dvds. Is that theft?

People are too hung up on the possibility that if you listen, read or watch something without giving someone money for it, then you are stealing. How many here use YouTube without checking for copyright clearances? The whole “*downloading is stealing” *idea came from the record companies who have always been notorious in their dealings and the shortchanging of their artists. Have you ever wondered how an artist could sell millions and millions of albums, yet have hardly anything for it?

I wouldn’t worry about it.

 

[PaddyMac]

Essentially what you’re asking us here is something the priest in the confessional should do. Intellectual property is really a difficult thing to deal with because, unlike physical goods, the owner of intellectual property doesn’t actually lose anything. His property is not diminished in any way - akin to how a candle is not diminished by lighting another candle. What is lost is potential revenue. I’m not going to attempt to tackle the issue here because I don’t think even our legislators have a full grasp on the issue. Personally my suggestion would be to delete any music you have which you know is illegally downloaded. The music which you do actually like and intend to continue using, purchase legally. My suspicion is that any music you downloaded which you didn’t like, you proably didn’t really even use. You might even consider writing letters to bands you really like simply thanking them for what they do and encouraging them to keep up the good work. I wouldn’t suggest admiting to them what you did. There’s no reason to stir up any trouble for yourself. But after all these suggestions, I would simply suggest you bring it up in confession, tell the priest you want to make restitution, and ask him for suggestions. I wouldn’t be scrupulous about it, however.

 

[Joe_5859]

I hope this is the right section for this post. if not forgive me.

Over the years i have downloaded music, from which I now understand it to be, illegal sources.

I was wondering if i haven’t listened to a large proportion of the songs that i downloaded illegally and i just deleted them, would i need to make restitution for these since i can’t simply return the items?

Also being at University and having a part time job, i dont really have the funds to repay over $6000 in music so what should i do?

Also i’m not quite sure which ones were purchased on itunes and CD’s and which ones were illegally added.

I have only in the last little while discovered the concept of restitution so i may not entirely understand what it is i need to do. Does a person need to make restitution for things which they were unaware were wrong at the time, like in my case since i didn’t know that what i was doing was stealing (since it happened from a young age)

Thanks for your responses in advanced!!!

Ask your Confessor. This is really something you should hear from him rather than us anonymous CAFers.

 

[japhy]

At best, downloading music may be unethical but it is no more stealing that borrowing a book, movie, magazine or cd from a friend and not giving anything for the experience.

Assuming that your friend has legally obtained for the book, movie, magazine, or CD, then it is within their legal rights to let a friend borrow it, or even to give it outright to another person and not expect it to be returned. It is their legitimate property.

Downloading music for free (when the music is not intended to be available free of charge to the public) is vastly different. Regardless of whether the person hosting the music acquired it legally, they have almost certainly not acquired the legal rights to re-distribute the music free of charge. Instead of giving the “original” to another person for a period of time, they are making unlimited copies to give to many people.

Would you equate borrowing a book from the library instead of buying it at a book store to be theft? The writer, editors and publishers do not make a cent from the library, yet we accept the practice. Everyday you can go to the library and read today’s newspaper for free, along with current magazines. You can even check out cds and dvds. Is that theft?

No, because libraries have arranged for the permission to do this. Libraries do pay for books, and some libraries charge fees for library cards and particularly for digital media rental. They also charge late fees. But on top of all this is the restriction that there is not an unlimited number of copies available for borrowing or rental; if a library only has three copies of Pride and Prejudice, only three people can be borrowing it at a time.

Libraries and music/software piracy web sites are not alike.

Finally, the question of how much money from sales goes to the artists, versus the companies that represent them, is not to the point. It is not moral to steal from the rich any more than it is to steal from the poor.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I.m.o., any artist or label which does not want its music do be permanently available for free, should not put it on the internet with unrestricted access. I can see making a single audio listen available for free, with a registration for that, so that the listener can evaluate whether to purchase. (A one-time listen of an individual piece, or a one-time listen of entire CD.) This replicates what has been available in rapidly diminishing bookstores and some music stores: a headset audio preview of the same, which also used to be available in very-very old “record” stores. (And might still be in some vintage music stores.)

Or, allow a partial listen. Otherwise, it is the responsibility of the artist to protect both copyright and sales, i.m.o.

While I do not engage in any kind of regular downloading of music (especially the kind that many people do, which is saved downloads, which they then upload to an ipod or other device), I have absolutely no guilt about downloading what others have invited me to download – whether that is music, a document, a software application, etc. It would be like setting out a piece of furniture on the curb, with a sign that said “Take me,” and then feigning moral outrage that someone took it !

It is a very different thing to use subterfuge to access items on the internet which are strictly available for purchase only. (Like using someone else’s identity, with or without their knowledge)

 

[japhy]

Perhaps this thread should be moved to “Moral Theology”?

 

[april32010]

. Intellectual property is really a difficult thing to deal with because, unlike physical goods, the owner of intellectual property doesn’t actually lose anything. His property is not diminished in any way

that is an absurd comment,he loses income. Catachism of the Catholic Church #2434 A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice.221 In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. “Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural, and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good.”222 Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.

 

[april32010]

Contrary to many opinions here, downloading music is not the same as theft. Theft is physically taking something that does not belong to you

you really ought to consult a lawyer or a dictionary before you start defining crimes.

 

[japhy]

I.m.o., any artist or label which does not want its music do be permanently available for free, should not put it on the internet with unrestricted access. …] It is a very different thing to use subterfuge to access items on the internet which are strictly available for purchase only.

Trust me, when you find a Russian web site, like freemuzic.ru (imaginary example), offering you MP3 downloads of last year’s biggest-selling albums… it’s not legitimate, it’s not ethical.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Trust me, when you find a Russian web site, like freemuzic.ru (imaginary example), offering you MP3 downloads of last year’s biggest-selling albums… it’s not legitimate, it’s not ethical.

I believe you. So, japhy, are there no tools to shut down such websites? For example, when I went to access something (a document or something else, I don’t remember) maybe less than a year ago, the page had been flagged somehow, and it appeared to me that someone had been trying to offer this to the public without authorization. So somehow intervention was accomplished. I realize that’s sometimes a lot of work, but apparently some authors/artists manage to do this.

I was recently notified by someone overseas that someone was trying to use my company name without my permission. This was some oversight group in that country. (Not just a private individual.)

So perhaps there needs to be some international collective to be watchdogs for the trafficking of intellectual property?

Or maybe there are other ways, from the artist’s/producer’s end, or in some other way, to signal that a copy of something has not been authorized, so that the viewer/listener/reader will know that this is a pirated copy. (Such as, at the very point of putting it on the internet to begin with.)

 

[japhy]

So, japhy, are there no tools to shut down such websites? For example, when I went to access something (a document or something else, I don’t remember) maybe less than a year ago, the page had been flagged somehow, and it appeared to me that someone had been trying to offer this to the public without authorization. So somehow intervention was accomplished. I realize that’s sometimes a lot of work, but apparently some authors/artists manage to do this.

There are so many sites popping up every day that it is very difficult to find and shut them all down. Until such a site becomes publicly known, there’s very little that can be done, short of infiltrating the community of pirates responsible for it.

I work for a company that does these sorts of investigations and infiltrations, assisting law enforcement, companies, and private individuals to locate and shut down pirating web sites, and to bring the perpetrators to justice.

to signal that a copy of something has not been authorized, so that the viewer/listener/reader will know that this is a pirated copy. (Such as, at the very point of putting it on the internet to begin with.)

Many of the people who get their movies, music, and software illegally are well aware it’s illegal. They just don’t want to pay for it, or they want to “stick it to the man”. And many of the people who are making movies, music, and software available online illegally use very sophisticated tools and processes to do it, so that there is no loss of quality or other negative feature. As soon as some new encryption or watermark technology is developed and used to safeguard digital property, you can be 100% sure that pirates are already working on a way to crack it.

 

[PaddyMac]

that is an absurd comment,he loses income. Catachism of the Catholic Church #2434 A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice.221 In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. “Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural, and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good.”222 Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.

This particular quote from the catechism seems to have more to do with record companies keeping an unreasonably large portion of the revenue from album sales for themselves rather than the artists than it does people illegally obtaining music.

 

[Timothysis]

Assuming that your friend has legally obtained for the book, movie, magazine, or CD, then it is within their legal rights to let a friend borrow it, or even to give it outright to another person and not expect it to be returned. It is their legitimate property.

On the contrary…the whole argument is grounded on the issue of enjoying the use of something without paying for it. Many have argued that the downloading issue pertains to the ease and availability to distribute something. It has also been argued that while you may own the product that contains the music, you do not own the music or the rights to it. So, while you may be free to loan a cd, book or dvd to someone, you are still violating the “rights” of the holder by distributing their work without their permission. In essence, the mindset of record, movie and publishing companies is that (if they had their way), only the original, single buyer of their product could use it exclusively. Many have argued that the presence of copy machines in libraries aids in copyright violations. Think of the horror that a woman who found a poem in a book that speaks to her should make a copy of it and put it on her refrigerator. Technically, she is violation the conditions of the publisher.

No, because libraries have arranged for the permission to do this. Libraries do pay for books, and some libraries charge fees for library cards and particularly for digital media rental. They also charge late fees. But on top of all this is the restriction that there is not an unlimited number of copies available for borrowing or rental; if a library only has three copies of Pride and Prejudice, only three people can be borrowing it at a time.

I see. So it is ok if only three copies of Pride and Prejudice are “stolen” at a time.

BTW, many libraries get their books through donations and even from publishers. Many also do not charge for library cards or for loaning digital media. Late fees only apply to those who return their items past the due date and such fees goes to the library, not copyright holders.

Libraries and music/software piracy web sites are not alike.

Both allow individuals to access, use and enjoy items without cost of purchase. Neither pays publishing or copyright royalties.

 

[Timothysis]

you really ought to consult a lawyer or a dictionary before you start defining crimes.

Then perhaps you can help me?

If I steal a CD from the local WalMart, I have committed a theft. I have taken a physical item from a store that has been bought and paid for. I have depleted their physical inventory and have caused the store to lose money. In effect, my action has negative consequences for the store.

If I go to an alt.binaries newsgroup and find that someone who has a particular CD in their possession, has ripped it to their computer and has posted it on the newsgroup, and I download that CD, then who is at a loss? I haven’t stolen from the person who sold or bought the CD, nor have I stolen from the person who owns it. Indeed, the person who owns it has put it up to share with others. Now tell me, who have I stolen from?

Finally, I can hear Norman Greenbaum’s Spirit In The Sky for free on the radio or I can listen to it on YouTube. Just because I do doesn’t mean that I would run out and buy the Best of Norman Greenbaum if it wasn’t available to listen to, nor would I go to WalMart and steal it because that would be theft. As I said before, I think that the most one could say is that internet downloading can be said to be unethical.

 

[Joe_5859]

Let’s not forget the OP who came here for advice.

 

[PaddyMac]

The thing with intellectual property is that there are two elements which do not necessarily always have to be joined together. There is the physical media: Newspaper, book, magazine, VHS cassette, audio cassette, CD, DVD, bluray disc, etc. Then there is the actual intellectual property: the actual audio recording, the actual words which are printed, the actual video footage, etc. The concept of theft is easy to understand with a physical object. When I take a physical object from someone without their permission, this is clearly theft, and the person from which it was taken has clearly lost something. However, the actualy intellectual property does not have the same limitations which the physical media has. It might be compared somewhat to the flame of a candle (as I mentioned in an earlier post) or to the spirit in relationship to the body. The physical body and the spirit can be separated from each other. The body is limited, but the spirit is, if not unlimited, at least far less limited than the body. In any case, unlike a physical object, intellectual property can be multiplied infinitely without diminishing the original (like a candle flame) and the owner does not lose anything. Any perceived loss is theoretical or potential.

However, there are some inconsistencies regarding our legal views regarding intellectual property. Let’s say someone goes to a movie theater and sneaks a video camera in. They record the entire movie with their hidden camera and distribute their recording. They then distribute this recording via the internet because it is considered to be piracy of the intellectual property of the movie. However, let’s say I say something - anything - maybe I’m invited to give a presentation at my local parish on some theological topic and someone brings a video camera to record me giving the talk. Who is the owner of the intellectual property? The owner is the one who made the recording. But based on the previous example, it should be mine.

It seems that part of the problem consists in that the general idea of property which we understand easily with physical objects applies to the physical media, but with the actual intellectual property, what is sold is not a “copy” (or unit) of the intellectual property but a license to use it such as we would be familiar with in the case of computer software. What is happening in the case of intellectual property such as recorded music is that it is being treated at one time like physical property and at another time like a license - whichever suits the fancy of the intellectual property owners at that particular moment.

Another angle we could consider the issue from would be that of a service. If I have a venue of some sort and hire a band to come and perform live, I do not receive some physical property in exchange for their wage, but I receive a service. The band which performs deserves their wage. So in some sense you might see the price paid for intellectual property as the payment due to the band for the service of recording the music. Of course this explanation isn’t perfect either because it is not as though the band performs their work again each time a new CD is pressed or digital copy of the music is made.

In the case of music played over the radio, this is not free, either. The radio company which broadcasts the music pays licensing fees to an organization such as ASCAP for the right to broadcast the music.

I don’t have a solid answer to the question, but I hope I have helped shed some light on some of the issues relevant to the discussion.