Downloading music off the internet

[newtolatin]

The musician and the company which produces the music are paid out of what one pays for the music; this is called royalties. Say that Joe Smith works nights at a restaurant to support himself, but during the day works on his music. Finally he is noticed and Sherry Jones produces a CD for him. Each has an investment: one of time and effort, the other of money (the cost of renting the studio, putting together the music, and making the CDs themselves, as well as advertising and distribution).

Neither of them would go to all  this trouble if they didn't hope for a return, just as a farmer would not plant a crop nor a doctor pay for and study medicine. By "stealing" a copy, Edward Teach is preventing them from being paid for their work and investment. "A laborer is worthy of his hire." If enough of this were to go on, people would stop producing music at all, and we would all be impoverished.

Now, Ed Teach says that he wouldn't have bought the music so he hasn't done anything wrong. Paying for the music-delivery-system (the MP3 recording, the CD, the LP) is what gives him the right to listen to it. Radio stations pay to play the songs they play, and that payment is distributed among the musicians who created that music. Even malls pay. So that "free" music that we hear has been paid for by somebody else. Every time a radio station plays the latest number one hit, the musician gets a share.

HTH

[Credo]

       Would this be mitigated by the totally degenerate lives many of these stars live? To deprived these people of money knowing how they waste it, woudl that be bad? I do not know.... just a thought.

       As an aside, I do not burn CD's, so I do not say this necessarily in defense of copying music. Just wondering....

[ChantCd]

What they choose to spend their money on (cocaine, hookers, strip bars) is not our concern.

 

Our concern is that they have a right (in justice) to the royalties for their work. If we do anything to prevent them from receiving those royalties, we are committing an injustice.

 

The gravity of the matter is judged by its dollar value, just as with stealing.

 

$14.99 is probably not a days' pay for Britney Spears, Vanilla Ice, or MC Hammer, so it would be a venial sin (well, maybe MC Hammer isn't so rich these days...)

 

$699.99 for Adobe Photoshop is a bit pricier; so it would add up to "grave matter" much more quickly.

 

That is how a (well-formed, Thomistic, trad) priest explained it to me.

 

God bless,

 

Matthew

 

[Dilexisti]

I'm sure this won't pass muster but what about the television station who broadcasts movies, or the radio station who plays music on air?  The TV station paid for the right to show the movie, the consumer paid the cable company a fee (subscription) every month to watch the movie.  In essence, the consumer actually paid for the right to watch the movie.  If he put a tape in his VCR and recorded the movie for later viewing, is he infringing the copyright law?  As long as his recording is for his own viewing and does not sell it (piracy) or lends it to somebody else, he is entitled to ownership within a narrow legal limit.  Right or wrong?

[Vandaler]

I'm sure this won't pass muster but what about the television station who broadcasts movies, or the radio station who plays music on air? The TV station paid for the right to show the movie, the consumer paid the cable company a fee (subscription) every month to watch the movie. In essence, the consumer actually paid for the right to watch the movie. If he put a tape in his VCR and recorded the movie for later viewing, is he infringing the copyright law? As long as his recording is for his own viewing and does not sell it (piracy) or lends it to somebody else, he is entitled to ownership within a narrow legal limit. Right or wrong?

What you described is legal as long that it's for your own personal enjoyment. You pay for it as part of your license when you subscribe to cable. 

 

Your not infriging on anything by taping TV.  In fact, they will go out of their way to sell a you TIVO.

[QuisUtDeus]

Some of these things come down to a matter of civil law.  The reason is because the person showing the movie and the person watching it have expectations under law of what is allowed.

 

You can record off the radio or TV and rewatch for your personal use.  That is fine.

 

You cannot rebroadcast or start selling copies of it.  Loaning to a friend would seem OK just as libraries loan books legally.

 

If we want to get down to the nitty-gritty, posting whole copies of articles is probably wrong at least in a civil sense.  Technically, a summary and link should be posted.  The reason is most content is driven by ad revenue, and by posting the whole article, you are not keeping your side of the (tacit) agreement.  That by reading the article you will look at ads which is how the articles are paid for.

 

That's how I usually post articles - summary and link, but in the forums here it seems to be full articles.  So I just post full articles, but usually try to include the link.

 

 

[newtolatin]

       Would this be mitigated by the totally degenerate lives many of these stars live? To deprived these people of money knowing how they waste it, woudl that be bad? I do not know.... just a thought.

       As an aside, I do not burn CD's, so I do not say this necessarily in defense of copying music. Just wondering....

Is it ok to steal from someone just because they have an unGodly lifestyle? Would it be ok for an employer not to pay his employee for work already done because he knows the money will be spent on loose living?

[Vandaler]

Would this be mitigated by the totally degenerate lives many of these stars live?

Funny how this particular point of copyright infrigement finds so many attempts to sqeeze out a way in which it may be ok to break the law.

[QuisUtDeus]

Funny how this particular point of copyright infrigement finds so many attempts to sqeeze out a way in which it may be ok to break the law.

We have infinite capacity to rationalize our actions.  That's why we have Confessors - to keep us honest.  "Victimless" crime is easier to rationalize, so I think that's why we see it more often.

[Credo]

       Again, I was simply asking, "What if?" I was not justifying or condeming such an action.

       With the VCR thing brought-up, then it is alright to copy music for ones own personal enjoyment, so long as one does not actually sell the music? This would seem to make the most sense...