Downloading Music

[_bc]

I have two questions, out of ignorance:

1) Is it certain that copyright infringements are the sin of theft? One difference between downloading something off Kazaa and stealing a car, is that by stealing a car you are preventing the owner of that car from using it.

2) What is the Church position on medical patents? I know a lot of the people who were involved in the Jubilee 2000 campaign think copycat drugs are a good idea, especially for countries where the governments can't afford to provide their populations the branded versions. I'm asking in part because I'd like to know, and in part because it's in some ways similar.

[BLAZEr]

I'm really torn on this one intellectually.

I have a desktop on my computer of someones Graphic art . . . it isn't a downloadable desktop, it's just a picture of some art that they sell and I have used it as my desktop. Is this a sin? I didn't pay for their art.

What if I printed it up and put it on my wall? Would it be a sin?

There are more examples:

What if I download a song to learn how to play it, but never buy the CD . . . like Worship music . . . am I stealing? Does the artist mind? What about all the guitar chords people get from the internet? Is that stealing too?

Art by its very nature is a public gesture. Certainly in this age of copyrights and legalism its against the law to use their music (sometimes even hundreds of years after their death) wihtout paying whoever own the copyright. But I don't think this is stealing like going into a store and literally lifting a CD without paying. The Artists would like us to think so, but its greed that does this. Should artists be properly compensated for their work? Absolutely! Do they "own" their work? I don't know . . . does Michaelangelo "own" David? Can anyone really "own" David?

[Theologian in Training]

Thanks Theologian (and everyone else as well).

I just deleted music and video and such that I've downloaded illegally.  Of course, I deleted most of it before creating this topic, but there was still some left.

Two last questions:

1) Music files such as Remix and Techno pieces, most of them are done by fans and are easily downloadable for free.  For example, Star Wars remix or techno music, done by fans.  They wouldn't be able to sell it, since it'd be illegal for them to do so (including fan films), of course this wouldn't be a sin to download them right?  Afterall, the creators make it for the purpose to have fun and are forced to give it off for FREE anyways.

2) How about downloading episodes of a show?  If the particular show was avaliable for VHS or DvD, it would be illegal right?  What if it wasn't?

The first question is a good question and one I don't have an answer for. You might try emailing the RIAA for specific details.

As to the second question, I don't quite know what you mean. If you mean downloading an episode that hasn't made it to DVD or VHS, you still cannot download it. The weird thing about that is the new technology, especially Windows XP Media Edition 2004 that allows you to tape live tv like tivo, does allow you to tape it, but has built in technology so you cannot share it. I think it is some kind of copyright protection thing on it. You might do better asking the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) for questions on that as well.

Sorry I couldn't help you anymore than that.

God Bless

[_bc]

1) Music files such as Remix and Techno pieces, most of them are done by fans and are easily downloadable for free.  For example, Star Wars remix or techno music, done by fans.

I don't think it's illegal to download this stuff, as long as the remixer makes it freely available. I vaguely remember something to the effect that if you significantly alter a work of art, it becomes a new work of art and so is the intellectual property of the person who altered it.

I may be wrong. When I (briefly) studied this, it was in the context of visual arts.

[BLAZEr]

hmmm it appears an alalogy for C & F's position would be stealing bread to feed his starving family... or something along those lines...

im pretty sure the Church teaches that the ends don't justify the means?  correct me if i'm wrong.  so i guess it would still be a sin ... srry dude.

Actually it is perfectly okay to steal to feed someone who is starving, if that is the only means to save their life. Why? Because Life is a higher good than Personal Property. Personal Property is of course a good, but it does not come before Human Life.

Like this . . . Did the Jews (and Catholics) in Aushwitz commit sin by stealing food when and where they could? Of course not!

[_bc]

Are you really sure the RIAA is an unbiased and accurate source of information on this?

[Paladin D]

I don't think it's illegal to download this stuff, as long as the remixer makes it freely available. I vaguely remember something to the effect that if you significantly alter a work of art, it becomes a new work of art and so is the intellectual property of the person who altered it.

I may be wrong. When I (briefly) studied this, it was in the context of visual arts.

It should be, since Lucasfilm forbids any sale profit from anything fan related. So it should be legal for it to be downloaded, since 90% of the fan art, fan films, and etc...are uploaded onto the net by the artists themselves.

Edited November 5, 2003 by Paladin D

[Theologian in Training]

I'm really torn on this one intellectually.

I have a desktop on my computer of someones Graphic art . . . it isn't a downloadable desktop, it's just a picture of some art that they sell and I have used it as my desktop.  Is this a sin?  I didn't pay for their art.

What if I printed it up and put it on my wall?  Would it be a sin?

There are more examples:

What if I download a song to learn how to play it, but never buy the CD . . . like Worship music . . . am I stealing?  Does the artist mind?  What about all the guitar chords people get from the internet?  Is that stealing too?

Art by its very nature is a public gesture.  Certainly in this age of copyrights and legalism its against the law to use their music (sometimes even hundreds of years after their death) wihtout paying whoever own the copyright.  But I don't think this is stealing like going into a store and literally lifting a CD without paying.  The Artists would like us to think so, but its greed that does this.  Should artists be properly compensated for their work?  Absolutely!  Do they "own" their work?  I don't know . . . does Michaelangelo "own" David?  Can anyone really "own" David?

When in doubt ask the artist themselves. I did that when I used a techno remix for my juggling act. I found the song on mp3.com, emailed the guy explaining to him the situation, and he was cool with me burning a copy of it on a CD and using it, since it was being publically displayed.

Usually in those cases, when in doubt, ask the artist. If they are popular artists and more widely known, it might be more difficult, but that is usually at their own discretion. Of course, a big problem that results is when the artist has sold their work, thereby allowing a corporation to have the rights to those songs.

It gets pretty sticky, and that is why I suggest you take a look at the RIAA site as well as MPAA. You might also check out certain sites that deal specifically with copyrights and infringements.

I am in no means an expert, and merely am sharing what I do and my own personal thoughts on it.

I am not sure there is any clear Church teaching on this issue, apart from the idea of theft and stealing. Maybe someone could pose that question to one of the guys over on EWTN, or another Q&A site.

Again, sorry I couldn't be more help.

God Bless

[Theologian in Training]

Are you really sure the RIAA is an unbiased and accurate source of information on this?

Maybe not, but they are the ones bringing the charges up, and trying to sue the world for copyright infringements. So, in that case, it is best to understand their position in these situations.

gotta run...class

God Bless

[_bc]

It should be, since Lucasfilm forbids any sale profit from anything fan related. So it should be legal for it to be downloaded, since 90% of the fan art, fan films, and etc...are uploaded onto the net by the artists themselves.

I'm not sure I understand your point... Lucasfilm doesn't pass laws, so it doesn't matter what they want to forbid. It's perfectly legal to create artwork using references to their movies, and Lucasfilm will not own the copyright to that artwork. Think of Andy Warhol.

Edited November 6, 2003 by _bc

[Paladin D]

I'm not sure I understand your point... Lucasfilm doesn't pass laws, so it doesn't matter what they want to forbid. It's perfectly legal to create artwork using references to their movies, and Lucasfilm will not own the copyright to that artwork. Think of Andy Warhol.

It's illegal to sell fan art or fan films for profit gain. It's perfectly fine to make fan related things, but it's illegal for the author to sell his Star Wars fan-related creation.

[Aloysius]

Actually it is perfectly okay to steal to feed someone who is starving, if that is the only means to save their life. Why? Because Life is a higher good than Personal Property. Personal Property is of course a good, but it does not come before Human Life.

Like this . . . Did the Jews (and Catholics) in Aushwitz commit sin by stealing food when and where they could? Of course not!

yeah u're right there

in fairness, that analogy doesn't exactly fit C&F's situ, though. although that software was the best way of advancement of his career, his family wouldn't have starved if he hadn't done it.

i kinda get afraid talkin around this area though. because it is true that the ends dont justify the means, right?

but then, i kan see the point where human life is greater. i donno...

in any case, C & F's situ wasn't about a starving family, it was advancement of his carreer for a better life for his family. it still had good ends, but the means were wrong and the ends were not necessary for survival. i guess that's where the line is drawn. the ends must be necessary for survival if you are to be justified in means that would normally be considered sinful. right? :ph34r:

[Aloysius]

nor can I, in good conscience, knowingly lend certain CD's knowing they will be burned.

actually, it is legally alright to lend someone a CD so that they can copy it for their own personal use, if i'm not mistaken.

it's when you make it available wide-scale for copying that it infringes on copyright laws. sharing music with friends for their own private use is fine. now if you knew they were gonna put it on Kazaa then you shouldn't give it to them. but if you bought a CD and wanted your friend to have it too, it is alright to let them burn it without infringing on copyrights.. i think, if im wrong someone correct me.

[Paladin D]

actually, it is legally alright to lend someone a CD so that they can copy it for their own personal use, if i'm not mistaken.

it's when you make it available wide-scale for copying that it infringes on copyright laws. sharing music with friends for their own private use is fine. now if you knew they were gonna put it on Kazaa then you shouldn't give it to them. but if you bought a CD and wanted your friend to have it too, it is alright to let them burn it without infringing on copyrights.. i think, if im wrong someone correct me.

I believe you are right. I'm not sure.

[jbike]

I learned a lot about Copy Right Laws when I worked at a church a few years ago. The one music company I contacted (Vineyard Music) told me I had to WRITE to them stating I OWNED the CD I wanted to make a copy of and that it would be for my personal use ONLY.

Vineyard Music is pretty big as far as Christian music publishers go.