Sin question about downloading free music and streaming Video

[Niji]

Ok so im in a hard place atm. I realize that downloading music freely off the internet w/o the artists permission is stealing and sinful (mortal?) but what do I do with the thousands of songs I have on my Iphone that ive downloaded this way? If I go to confession and tell god that I will do my best to steal no more am I obligated to totally wipe out all that music I have? Music is an important part of my life and I cant imagine life w/o it but if its what god requires of me ill do it.

Second question

Would streaming video’s (specifically anime) from websites and reading manga on the internet be considered stealing aswell? even if I dont download and save it anywhere on my computer?

Im going to bring this up at confession next time I go but i want some of your guys opinions. Am I just being scrupulous

 

[Joe_5859]

It’s hard to answer the streaming question. Some websites are set up to stream video legally with the rights-holder’s permission. Others are not. I don’t think it matters whether you physically download a video file or simply stream it. If you are doing it illegally, it is wrong.

As for the music, I cannot imagine keeping the songs. For me, I could not enjoy listening to the music knowing where it came from.

No one ever said repentance was easy.

I think it’s good that you plan on bringing this up in Confession next time you go. Listen to what the priest tells you.

 

[Myqyl]

Disclaimer : I’m very often wrong, so take my advice at your own risk…

That said, here’s what I did… I kept the music I downloaded and started looking for and purchasing legal copies so that the artist got paid. I felt that simply deleting wouldn’t be enough since I had enjoyed the songs for sometime already and the artist never got paid.

Obviously, if you are like i was, it may take some time to be able to pay for all the music you’ve taken… But I believe a good faith effort is really what is called for.

Some songs I’ve never been able to find legally (if anyone knows where i can get Edwin Hawkin’s Oh Happy Day, I owe him bigtime)… I haven’t figured out how to handle this.

As per streaming, if it’s illegal it’s immoral… If it’s legal, no worries.

God bless.

 

[mom2em]

For me … when I returned to the church, I deleted everything. Stopped anything and everything I had been doing terms of downloading and streaming. It was something that was bugging me for about a year BEFORE I returned to the church, so maybe that made it easier. But yeah, for me, I deleted everything. Blocked the streaming websites that weren’t offical/legal sites.

 

[Califman831]

aside from the guilt there was always the possibility of downloading a virus that would damage my system. With itunes i get a greater level of security in the event of a crash.

 

[edwest2]

Copyright means “right to copy.” That’s it. If you know it’s not legal, don’t copy it. Where are you getting your streamed material from?

If it’s vague, find out. If you can’t find out, don’t go to that site anymore. As far as not being able to get a legal copy, oh well. I’ve spent a lot of years accepting the fact that I might not get something legally.

Legal and right and wrong should be connected, not disconnected. You’re not being scrupulous. You’re doing the right thing.

Peace,
Ed

 

[insideitall]

first, the legal status of something does not automatically correlate to the moral status.

part of the confusion with digital media law stems from the misunderstanding of analog media law. when vcrs first came out the tv people went nuts because they didn’t want people skipping the commercials. the court had to rule that it was unreasonable to expect people to sit through commercials in real time and that therefore skipping them during a time-shifted viewing was perfectly legal. but note it said “time-shifted” - people weren’t supposed to actually tape and keep stuff. same deal with making cassette tapes of music from the radio, but since the tv/radio station paid for the right to air the content, no one cared. and obviously there was no way to enforce it because they couldn’t tell who was doing it (though they tried to make vhs tapes so that after a certain number of playbacks they would stop working). so yeah… if you still have some saturday morning cartoons or a season of saved by the bell in the attic at your mother’s place… or some mix tapes… congratulations, you’re breaking the law.

digital data is a whole other beast, though. it’s much higher quality, it’s much easier to copy and distribute, and it was easy for people to make profits off bootlegged products. it also has the downside of being traceable; deleted data is recoverable as long as it hasn’t been written over. this makes it much easier to prosecute and get money and make an example out of people… so that’s what they did.

I think the whole situation should have been handled differently. it should have been made clear when vhs and cassettes came out that holding on to the recorded material was illegal. since there was clearly a huge demand for personal copies of tv programming and music, they should have jumped on the bandwagon at the beginning and actually put stuff to home video/dvd relatively soon after airing, sold a *much *wider selection of music singles, and then once digital was developed did the same thing with allowing the purchase of individual episodes or tracks. most of the backlash could have been avoided. and some economists at rice/duke just showed that the drm craze only served to encourage illegal downloading.

I don’t think there’s a problem with keeping the stuff you already have, as long as you don’t share it and make sure to obtain anything new legally.

I don’t see a problem with streaming at all because the content isn’t in your possession. it’s like the internet’s library.

 

[edwest2]

The DRM craze will not end. The library concept is false. Just because it’s digital bits, you can’t copy and distribute it without the rights owner’s permission. Just because people do doesn’t make it right. The physical library bought and paid for the physical books and lend them as a service to the community. Who pays for the staff? Think about it when the next library millage comes up for a vote.

The FBI will tell you that this sort of theft causes billions of dollars in losses a year.

fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber/ipr/ipr

Peace,
Ed

 

[insideitall]

actually, itunes stopped using drm in 2009. amazon’s mp3s are also drm free.

here’s a link to the drm study I mentioned before: sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111007113944.htm

I think you misunderstood what I meant by the library analogy. a person viewing a streaming video - not downloading it - is not guilty of copyright infringement. if the file turns out to be posted illegally, the person/website that posted it would be held accountable, not the viewers. when amazon was selling 1984 and animal farm on the kindle but didn’t have the rights, people who had bought the books didn’t know that, and their money was refunded. they weren’t punished for illegally having copies because there was no way for them to know it was illegal.

libraries are supported by public funds and private donations. does this mean if I’m traveling, and am not a taxpayer for that particular area, I have no right to enter the library and read a book?
%between%

 

[wcknight]

BTW it is not a mortal sin, especially since you were NOT aware of the seriousness of the wrong doing.

One of the criteria for a mortal sin, is that you must be aware that it is a GRAVE serious matter BEFORE you sin and you deliberately do so anyway.

EIther way I think it is a venial sin, (unless there is some circumstance in which you seriously wanted to harm the originators). I can’t imagine any senario in which that would be the case…

I used to do this also, and have since stopped, and I am also trying to figure out a way to repay the artists for their materials. Many of the songs I have are from artists no longer in the business, so getting them compensation may be problematic. I may make a contribution to some music related charity instead.