C
Cristiano
Guest
That is not always true.
- Status
D
divinefaith
Guest
It’s still their right to earn money for that copy!
Haha
I edited my post after you replied.
T
twoangels
Guest
T
thewanderer
Guest
I think the question is why are they entitled to it? Is it because that’s what the law says? Or is there any further reason? Copyright laws are a fairly recent phenomena, it’s quite possible that governments have not yet figured out the best way to deal with these situations so that the natural law is upheld without meddling unnecessarily in peoples lives.It’s still their right to earn money for that copy!
Haha
T
twoangels
Guest
If I make an copy for myself, I deprive the artist from hiring someone to produce and sell a different copy at an inflated price. Copyright laws ban me from relying on my own resources to make the copy myself and create a type of monopoly so that what is no longer profitable or would never be profitable becomes or remains profitable. It has its benefits to society. I’m not opposed to copyright laws, but they are man-made laws.
E
epiclotus
Guest
People will always find justifications for their sin. File-sharing copyrighted works isn’t exempt. 
All this pandering to specific examples and philosophical mind-games will not change one simple fact: it is against the law to violate a copyright. Whether or not you think it’s stealing, it is still against the law. Whether or not you bought the artist’s CD after listening to an illegal download, it’s still against the law. Whether or not you think companies abuse IP, it’s still against the law to violate their copyrights. Unless a law violates a higher law of God, then we are called upon to follow that law. If it doesn’t violate God’s law, but you disagree with it, then there are legal avenues to take to change those laws. That is the only right and acceptable method a person of conscience and faith should be seeking.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_international_copyright_agreements
That’s a list of countries that recognize copyright, and the Berne Convention has 165 signatories alone. You can call it a “man-made” law all you want, but any country on that list has agreed to the protection of copyright in some form or another. It isn’t going away any time soon.
All this pandering to specific examples and philosophical mind-games will not change one simple fact: it is against the law to violate a copyright. Whether or not you think it’s stealing, it is still against the law. Whether or not you bought the artist’s CD after listening to an illegal download, it’s still against the law. Whether or not you think companies abuse IP, it’s still against the law to violate their copyrights. Unless a law violates a higher law of God, then we are called upon to follow that law. If it doesn’t violate God’s law, but you disagree with it, then there are legal avenues to take to change those laws. That is the only right and acceptable method a person of conscience and faith should be seeking.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_international_copyright_agreements
That’s a list of countries that recognize copyright, and the Berne Convention has 165 signatories alone. You can call it a “man-made” law all you want, but any country on that list has agreed to the protection of copyright in some form or another. It isn’t going away any time soon.
M
Marybeloved
Guest
Mind explaining the principle by which this is sin from the Catholic moral teaching?People will always find justifications for their sin. File-sharing copyrighted works isn’t exempt.
That’s how most people Ive met who cannot provide the reasoning and principles behind their proclamations upon being pressed for them, are wont to mis-characterize the positions they cannot answer to.
People already said that if there is sin involved, it’s one of disobedience, not of stealing- I don’t know why you think that this is in dispute.
International Law and Conventons and the play they have with the national laws and Constitutions of sovereign countries is a much more complicated matter, I’m afraid. A list of signatories does not prove as much as you think it does.
C
Cristiano
Guest
It is about the difference between potentiality and actuality of an event. If something is just potential without possibility of actuality (e.g. reductio ad absurdum with unicorns) then it should not be considered. However, if it is a potential with a final actuality (e.g. pregnancy) then it should be accounted for.
The “what” refers to a potential that will result in an actuality.
C
Cristiano
Guest
That is just introducing red herrings. Speed limits are man-made laws too, so what? Are you implying that it is not sinful to break man-made laws?
C
CGDouglas
Guest
No.
Someone charges you for the use of a file or multiple files. If you give someone a copy of the file you purchased in a transaction and you also kept a copy, you will be basically co-operating with theft. Certain files have copyright laws, and as such when they expire privately, they become public domain which is then free.
If the producer, whether an music artist, or a game designer or an author of a Kindle book, charges a price for it, you pay the price if you want it.
Taking the individual’s work and not paying his price, or circumventing it so that the author does not recieve his due royalty or fee for the work he has charged, is a deprevation and a violation. It’s basically theft.
God Bless,
Christopher.
C
Cristiano
Guest
You must first think at two different aspects of the problem. The first is uploading the original copyrighted files and the second is downloading the files and to that we can add re-uploading of the downloaded files.
The uploading of the original files violates a contract stipulated by two parts. If there is no intention to respect the stipulated contract then the individual should break the contract by returning the unused item for a refund. To violate the contract is sinful.
The downloading is not a sinful act in itself but is a participation in someone’s sin thus sinful. The second is sinful even if you are in a country where copyright laws do not exist because because it is not about breaking a law but it is participation in sin.
C
CGDouglas
Guest
if the author charges a price, are you saying then one should not pay that price, but bypass it and get it freely?
It’s basically theft, again, if the author charges a price for the transaction, you are not entitled to promulgate the file unless the author specifically states otherwise. It works in the form of a written agreement.
God Bless,
Christopher.
T
thewanderer
Guest
Let’s just clarify this again, I don’t think anyone is saying it is currently ok to download copyrighted material. What is in question, however, is why it is wrong. Is it a part of the natural law as such or is it simply because it is the law of our country? If the latter, to what extent is it a matter of natural law?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Perhaps theft is the wrong description of what happens in a violation of intellectual property. A better description might be the breaking of a promise and it becomes immoral for that reason. When you purchase copyrighted material you are implicitly entering into an agreement with the author of that material. You promise to abide by the terms of that agreement, regardless of the existence or non-existence of copyright laws. If the terms of that agreement are not clear, then perhaps there is a case to be made that subsequent sharing of that material is not immoral. But most people who buy such material are fully aware of the expectations of the license agreement. If those people then break their promise to the author of that material and share it in a manner that is disallowed by the agreement, then that is an immoral act. You do not need laws to tell you that. A totally private agreement would carry just as much moral weight.
Now we turn to the morality of the one who receives the “shared” material. This person did not enter into any agreement with the author of the material. So at first glance it appears that the recipient is not morally liable. But if the recipient is aware that the sharing of this material is a breaking of a promise by the one who is providing the material, then the recipient is cooperating with an act he knows is immoral for the one who is “sharing”. It is similar to (but not exactly the same as) buying what you know to be stolen property. You did not steal it. But your purchasing that property is enabling the thief to profit from his immoral act.
Now we turn to the morality of the one who receives the “shared” material. This person did not enter into any agreement with the author of the material. So at first glance it appears that the recipient is not morally liable. But if the recipient is aware that the sharing of this material is a breaking of a promise by the one who is providing the material, then the recipient is cooperating with an act he knows is immoral for the one who is “sharing”. It is similar to (but not exactly the same as) buying what you know to be stolen property. You did not steal it. But your purchasing that property is enabling the thief to profit from his immoral act.
C
Cristiano
Guest
Natural law is also called the moral law. For something to be moral we have three conditions: The intent must be right, the act itself must be right, and the circumstances must be right. If we fail on any of the three then the behavior is not moral. We cannot really say that file sharing of copyrighted material will always be immoral the same way we say that taking away food from someone is always theft. There might be some extreme case where sharing copyrighted material might be morally right. Natural law (a.k.a. moral law) says that we must follow man made laws when they are not unjust.
T
twoangels
Guest
Yes, thank you for calling my argument a red harring and than answering it with a straw man argument. I am not arguing that it is ok to break man-made laws. I’m arguing that they are man-made laws and thus that it is sinful because “Pay unto Ceasur what is Ceasurs” rather than “thou shall not steal.”
C
CGDouglas
Guest
If an individual takes something without paying, its theft. To promulgate such, where the individual may obtain it freely, undermining the author’s fee, would be co-operating in theft.
If he paid for the use of the material, then he surely must know that the author charges other people for the same. Logically, he should be able to determine that giving another person a copy of his purchase, undermining the right of the author to recieve his fee is rather grave.
Precisely. However, if you also act on purchasing the stolen property, knowing full and well, you’d be co-operating with the theft.
God Bless,
Christopher.
C
CGDouglas
Guest
It deprives them of what is rightfully theirs. Like I said, if an author charges you say £2.99 for an ebook, if you promulgate this ebook freely or recieve freely, you’d essentially be taking what does not belong to you. It was the author’s work and as such, he can charge a price if he pleases.
God Bless,
Christopher.
T
thewanderer
Guest
I was talking about the distinction makes when talking about laws how some are purely human and arbitrary, but it becomes part of the moral and natural law to obey them because they are necessary for the good of the society. So when I made a distinction between the natural law as sub and the laws of a country this is what I was talking about. If there were no copyright laws, anywhere, would it be wrong to share sub files with others? I think the main reason people wonder about whether or not it is part of the natural law as such is because no one seems to think it is wrong to share something you bought with family and friends etc. Maybe to give them an actual copy of the file, but to pet them wath it? Or even borrow it? It seems like quite a stretch to claim that that is wrong.
I am intrigued by the argument that you and leafbyniggle have put forward… That does make a lot of sense to me, although it would still mean that there is nothing in filesharing itself that goes against the natural law, as the sin involved would be breach of promise and no filesharing.
M
Marybeloved
Guest
They charged a price, someone paid it and shared the product with another person for free. If you buy a DVD, must everyone else pay a price before they can watch it?
The author already sold his movies- Why are those who watch them from others who have bought them and shared them stealing? If you were talking about hacking into a website and down-loading without paying, I could get why you call it theft. It would be like someone breaking into a store and stealing DVDs.
But if a person merely shares what he has bought, how is it stealing if the others just watch it? Perhaps you can argue about immorality from a different principle, but I don’t see how this is theft. Not if I can also watch DVDs I haven’t bought that others give me for free without stealing. It seems that the only principle is that the sharing happens in cyberspace, so that is what converts it into stealing, when if done in any other way it is merely sharing.
- Status