Internet Pirating, Intellectual Property, And Restitution

[Mr.Cat]

[quote][b][url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm"]Catechism of John Paul II[/url][/b]
[b][url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2412.htm"]2412[/url][/b] In virtue of commutative justice, reparation for injustice committed requires the restitution of stolen goods to their owner:

[i]Jesus blesses Zacchaeus for his pledge: "If I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold." Those who, directly or indirectly, have taken possession of the goods of another, are obliged to make restitution of them, or to return the equivalent in kind or in money, if the goods have disappeared, as well as the profit or advantages their owner would have legitimately obtained from them. Likewise, all who in some manner have taken part in a theft or who have knowingly benefited from it - for example, those who ordered it, assisted in it, or received the stolen goods - are obliged to make restitution in proportion to their responsibility and to their share of what was stolen.[/i]

[b][url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2454.htm"]2454[/url][/b] Every manner of taking and using another's property unjustly is contrary to the seventh commandment. The injustice committed requires reparation. Commutative justice requires the restitution of stolen goods.[/quote]When does the pirating of intellectual property on the Internet become “[i][b]grave matter[/b][/i]”, thus able to be mortal sin, and in what capacity are persons involved in such responsible/culpable for restitution ([i]who, what, when, where, why, and how[/i])?

[i]Images, sounds, YouTube videos, online songs, online shows, cheap shareware programs, online copies of books/stories... Video games, operating systems, system files, and office programs.[/i]

Edited January 12, 2009 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Ziggamafu]

I assume that you are asking for an educated opinion as there has been no formally authoritative statement from the Magisterium in regards to your question. Moral theologians are divided on the specifics and the subject remains highly controverted.

Here is my [i]opinion[/i]:
[b]
So-called "piracy" is only grave when its purpose is unjust financial gain (bootlegging). [/b]If one merely downloads or shares intangible data then - if it is a sin at all - it could only be venial (by means of - somewhere down a vast chain of cause and effect - [i]indirectly [/i]harming the [i]hypothetical [/i]financial gain of the data's original authors).

I would not offend my conscience if I downloaded a missed episode of Smallville that was not available on Hulu, happily missing out on commercials that I would have ignored or skipped regardless. Nor would I offend my conscience by downloading music someone is sharing anymore than I would by accepting a mixed CD that a friend made for me. It really is not a complex problem: either data-sharing is stealing or it isn't. I say it isn't. If I was somehow persuaded that it is, then I would compare it to the variations of theft that moral theologians regard as venial.

Edited January 12, 2009 by Ziggamafu

[T-Bone _]

It is theft. There cannot be a reasonable argument otherwise. A worker deserves to be paid their wages. Record companies deserve to be paid for the music they invested money in producing.

I don't see it a downloaded song or two as grave matter--it's when people steal thousands of songs that such actions become grave.

[Ziggamafu]

Theft is the stealing of one thing from someone else; when something is shared on the internet, the original sharer is the presumed original buyer. In other words, private property has been freely shared for the benefit of those who wish to check it out. The heart of the matter, for those who wish to determine that internet sharing is theft, is the nature of private property; is it morally appropriate that I can sell you something, take your money, and maintain rights over your purchase? I would suggest that although the Magisterium has most certainly NOT spoken authoritatively on the subject of internet sharing, she has indeed spoken on the gravity of the full rights to private property. If the intangible data is therefore the exclusive property of its buyer (in other words, true owner) then that owner has the right to share that data and those that take advantage of that generosity commit no sin in doing so.

Edited January 12, 2009 by Ziggamafu

[CatherineM]

I received about half the songs I currently have on my mp3 player by downloading them from CD's borrowed at the library. I pay money every year for my library card, and in Canada, artists receive additional reimbursement from Public Lending Rights and CanCopy for such usage, so I do not feel that what I am doing is a sin. I have only additionally copied them for one other person that I am trying to get interested in the music. She also has a library card, and the same access to the free downloads, but hasn't the time, and even if she did, she wouldn't pick these artists. I kind of look on it as doing PR work for them. I certainly wouldn't copy them and then resell, although I know some people might.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1749488' date='Jan 12 2009, 11:23 AM']Theft is the stealing of one thing from someone else; when something is shared on the internet, the original sharer is the presumed original buyer. In other words, private property has been freely shared for the benefit of those who wish to check it out. The heart of the matter, for those who wish to determine that internet sharing is theft, is the nature of private property; is it morally appropriate that I can sell you something, take your money, and maintain rights over your purchase? I would suggest that although the Magisterium has most certainly NOT spoken authoritatively on the subject of internet sharing, she has indeed spoken on the gravity of the full rights to private property. [b]If the intangible data is therefore the exclusive property of its buyer (in other words, true owner) then that owner has the right to share that data and those that take advantage of that generosity commit no sin in doing so.[/b][/quote]

Hmm. Interesting. I am truthfully unsure of what to think.

[Seven77]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1749488' date='Jan 12 2009, 12:23 PM']Theft is the stealing of one thing from someone else; when something is shared on the internet, the original sharer is the presumed original buyer. In other words, private property has been freely shared for the benefit of those who wish to check it out. The heart of the matter, for those who wish to determine that internet sharing is theft, is the nature of private property; is it morally appropriate that I can sell you something, take your money, and maintain rights over your purchase? I would suggest that although the Magisterium has most certainly NOT spoken authoritatively on the subject of internet sharing, she has indeed spoken on the gravity of the full rights to private property. If the intangible data is therefore the exclusive property of its buyer (in other words, true owner) then that owner has the right to share that data and those that take advantage of that generosity commit no sin in doing so.[/quote]

If I buy software and "share it" (copying), i steal from the software company. When you purchase software you purchase a license. That license is your private property not the actual program itself.

[Dust's Sister]

I think if you have bought a copy of the person's cd at one time, or if you bought their song... it would be alright to listen to them on youtube (over and over).. but if you haven't I think you should only listen to the song(s) every once in a while, but not all the time. If it's a song you TRULY enjoy and Truly enjoy listening over and over... then I think it's only right that the artist gets credit for the song at least. You tube is way to promote songs/videos etc.... So if you really like something you should give the artist their credit for doing so.

As for myspace, I think it's a little different. The artist is freely putting their songs out there for people to listen to, and the songs aren't downloadable, I don't think... like the songs on youtube are. Although some artists do have their official music video pages. Therefore they are letting the public listen to their songs anytime they want to..... but the whole point of them doing that is to promote their stuff so people can buy it. Like I said before if you just go there every single day and listen....... you should at least give them credit... in fact one way to make you feel better is if you comment on their videos, saying.. "Good video!".. or "everyone go buy this song or album"... etc... then it wouldn't be that bad.

As for watching shows on youtube, I could understand if it's really old shows, and the DVD's are expensive and you can't afford buying them....... but... if you can afford to buy them, then I suggest you do, if it's a show you are going to watch regularly on youtube. Or if you have the intentions on buying the DVD eventually, the I suppose it's okay. Or if you watch it on regular tv as well as youtube, that is fine also, because you are giving the show good ratings, while it's on regular tv.

As for watching clips of movies... Same rule applies in my opinion, if you're going to watch it over and over... or even just one time.. I suggest go rent it once, or go see it! And of course comment on the videos. Commenting on the videos, making good reviews will at least justify watching/listening to these things one time. lol...

As for me, when it comes to music.... the music that I listen to the most on youtube, I have bought on itunes. (For $1 a piece)..... I have other songs I want to buy but I don't have the money right now, but I will eventually.

I also don't think it's right to steal videos from youtube, because you are taking away the number of views this video gets on youtube. Some people/users on youtube are proud of how many views they get.

P.S. - Don't forget to rate the number of stars of the videos as well.

Edited January 12, 2009 by Dust's Sister

[philothea]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1749446' date='Jan 12 2009, 10:29 AM']I assume that you are asking for an educated opinion as there has been no formally authoritative statement from the Magisterium in regards to your question. Moral theologians are divided on the specifics and the subject remains highly controverted.

Here is my [i]opinion[/i]:
[b]
So-called "piracy" is only grave when its purpose is unjust financial gain (bootlegging). [/b]If one merely downloads or shares intangible data then - if it is a sin at all - it could only be venial (by means of - somewhere down a vast chain of cause and effect - [i]indirectly [/i]harming the [i]hypothetical [/i]financial gain of the data's original authors).

I would not offend my conscience if I downloaded a missed episode of Smallville that was not available on Hulu, happily missing out on commercials that I would have ignored or skipped regardless. Nor would I offend my conscience by downloading music someone is sharing anymore than I would by accepting a mixed CD that a friend made for me. It really is not a complex problem: either data-sharing is stealing or it isn't. I say it isn't. If I was somehow persuaded that it is, then I would compare it to the variations of theft that moral theologians regard as venial.[/quote]

I honestly find this astonishing coming from you. Of course it's stealing. Yes, it might not be grave, but that hardly makes it acceptable. That's like justifying knowingly buying stolen goods off the back of a truck -- "well, *I* didn't steal it, so I'm not doing anything wrong."

Quotes from the Catechism:

[quote]2406 Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good.

2412 [...] Likewise, all who in some manner have taken part in a theft or who have knowingly benefited from it - for example, those who ordered it, assisted in it, or received the stolen goods - are obliged to make restitution in proportion to their responsibility and to their share of what was stolen.

2453 The seventh commandment forbids theft. Theft is the usurpation of another's goods against the reasonable will of the owner.

2454 Every manner of taking and using another's property unjustly is contrary to the seventh commandment. the injustice committed requires reparation.[/quote]

Just because you don't see any direct harm in it, doesn't mean there isn't any. I know plenty of artists and people who work behind the scenes in television. They struggle to pay their bills and feed their families just like the rest of us. Knowingly and deliberately bypassing the system which would pay them for their work is undeniably a violation of the Seventh Commandment. And doing it for a bit of entertainment or convenience? I don't see any excuse.

[Dust's Sister]

I like your answer Philothea

[Mr.Cat]

[center][img]http://radified.com/gfx/downloading_communism.jpg[/img][img]http://david.stadelmann-online.com/economics/0015_communism.jpg[/img][/center]For those users arguing that it is grave matter: ([b]1[/b]) are there any conditions that mitigate the gravity of the sin; ([b]2[/b]) how should the perpetrators and accessories to such pirating/stealing be viewed; ([b]3[/b]) in what amount should reparation be made and to whom?


[i]I have personally thought a lot about this so I am eager for other’s opinions, moreover because I personally find the matter very perplexing. I may consider sharing...[/i]

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Seven77' post='1749584' date='Jan 12 2009, 04:08 PM']If I buy software and "share it" (copying), i steal from the software company. When you purchase software you purchase a license. That license is your private property not the actual program itself.[/quote]

Insofar as software is concerned, you are correct. Such is not the case - at least formally - in regards to other media, however.

Furthermore, I would contend that it would be next to impossible to track all possible instances of illegal file sharing or copyright infringement in the average, data-filled life. I tend to see a commonsense application, here: deliberate attempts to get out of buying something by means of file sharing would be at least venially sinful and deliberate attempts to profit by means of file sharing would be certainly grave.

Moreover, as stated before, the Church simply has not spoken on the subject and moral theologians remain divided. I can in any case only give a private opinion. I would never teach one side or the other as being definitively correct.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='philothea' post='1749593' date='Jan 12 2009, 04:38 PM']I honestly find this astonishing coming from you. Of course it's stealing. Yes, it might not be grave, but that hardly makes it acceptable. That's like justifying knowingly buying stolen goods off the back of a truck -- "well, *I* didn't steal it, so I'm not doing anything wrong."[/quote]

Apologies for any scandal. I am not always correct, and, as evidenced by my conversion to Catholicism, will happily acknowledge my errors when proven wrong.

Anyway, this is simply backwards. Knowingly buying stolen goods is certainly evil. Knowingly accepting the shared property of one or more owners is not.

[quote]Just because you don't see any direct harm in it, doesn't mean there isn't any...I don't see any excuse.[/quote]

You will have to demonstrate exactly how a file sharer directly harms the people down the chain. It seems absolutely illogical to me, to understand any [i]hypothetical [/i]harm as anything but indirect. Keep in mind that we are dealing with intangible data that merely represents - and does not necessarily imply - a hypothetically lost sale.

[KnightofChrist]

What of Counterfeiting? Say I have an electronic 100 dollar bill, it's mine it belongs to me, I decide to [i]share it[/i], that is really copying it to, 100 people who copy it to 100 people, and so long and so forth. Would that be wrong? Would that be sin?

Edited January 12, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[Seven77]

[quote]I would contend that it would be next to impossible to track all possible instances of illegal file sharing or copyright infringement in the average, data-filled life.[/quote]

that implies ignorance. when somebody has no idea whatsoever that they are engaging in illegal activity the sin (the gravity of which would be mitigated) doesn't appear on the radar. those instances [i]only[/i] would be next to impossible to track.