Author Topic: Agonizing moral theology question -- (Read 7129 times)

Darcy · « **Reply #15 on:** August 22, 2011, 10:17:54 PM »

I didn't read the very long post either.
If you are downloading music from our enemies or evil people, I don't think it is a sin.
It would more likely be a sin to give money to heretics who may be producing this music that is an occassion of sin for some.

I have a question along a similar line..that is these moral conflicts that come up as a result of the internet...is it a sin to be anonymous on the internet? To deliberately hide your identity or tell white lies about yourself as an assumed avatar on a chat board?

Zenith · « **Reply #16 on:** August 22, 2011, 10:25:56 PM »

I tend to lean toward the side that says it is not theft.
I think the point that you can download music just like you can record your favorite TV show (for me there is no favorite as its all garbage) or record a movie for your own personal use.

The makers of music are well aware that music can be downloaded free and as they really still have there music after you have downloaded it, I would say that it doesn't quite fit into the theft category.

I think if you did it to make money off it and spread it around, that would be wrong though I see no problems downloading it for personal use.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #17 on:** August 22, 2011, 10:51:48 PM »

Taxed for music in Canada?? That's interesting. Care to elaborate? Is this all music or certain kinds?

MaterDominici · « **Reply #18 on:** August 22, 2011, 10:57:31 PM »

I agree that there are grey areas with this, but I think it makes more sense to approach discerning what is and isn't sinful (and to what degree) by trying to determine the intention of the person creating or distributing the music rather than the intention of the listener.

If you called me up and asked for a sample of the music I sell so that you could determine if you'd like to buy it, in a really generous mood, I'd give you one, complete track. Normally, I'd point you to where you can listen to four or five 30-second samples. So, yes, I think if you download my entire CD in order to "sample" it, I'd call you a thief.

More to come, but I like short posts. :wink:

MaterDominici · « **Reply #19 on:** August 22, 2011, 11:06:49 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

( b ) There is the matter of people recording songs off the radio. Some say that only certain songs are played on the radio, the ones the record company releases to the public, but in reality, sometimes the entire album is played, or other songs not released officially are played.

On classical music stations, an entire piano or violin concerto or symphony that comprises more than half of a current release is commonly played. Would it be wrong to record music off of this station? I think everyone would agree it would be scrupulous to say yes.

The radio is an understood medium. As in, what can and can not happen when a song is played on the radio is a known that the distributor takes into consideration when determining what the cost to the radio station will be for playing that song. The ability to record a specific song from the radio (even Internet radio) is known possibility that the distributor has decided is acceptable due to the profit they make in allowing the radio station to play the song. What they're giving and getting are knowns with minimal variation and they've decided for themselves that the exchange is acceptable.

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #20 on:** August 22, 2011, 11:08:51 PM »

Quote from: Darcy

I have a question along a similar line..that is these moral conflicts that come up as a result of the internet...is it a sin to be anonymous on the internet? To deliberately hide your identity or tell white lies about yourself as an assumed avatar on a chat board?

Gee I hope not!

Regarding online forum anonymity: No, it is not a sin, because you are merely withholding personal information the knowledge of which it is neither proper nor necessary for others to know: in fact, people on the internet cannot claim a right to know what pertains to your person. Revealing such things may be imprudent at times.

Regarding "white lies:" The culpability of these lies depends on the intention whereby one pronounces such lies and situational factors and consequences that may lead to scandal (i.e., white lies can lead to more white lies, to more complex white lies, to copying and pasting stuff from Wikipedia). Just don't do it.

On the other hand, I personally opine that it is a sin for a Priest or Bishop to anonymously participate on internet forum or chat rooms, and it is a cause of great scandal for them to tell "white lies" while doing so for whatever reason.

This is why I don't like Traditio. "Father Moderator" and the "Traditio Fathers" could be anyone or anything, and they are using their self-imposed "clerical authority" to promulgate gross errors and and pronounce moral judgments that are mostly erroneous and scandalous.

Priests and Bishops should avoid the internet anyways. They are supposed to be busy with either prayer or tending to souls. They should only use email for purposes of contacting the faithful who submit inquiries or have no other means of communicating with them.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #21 on:** August 22, 2011, 11:15:15 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

If you called me up and asked for a sample of the music I sell so that you could determine if you'd like to buy it, in a really generous mood, I'd give you one, complete track. Normally, I'd point you to where you can listen to four or five 30-second samples. So, yes, I think if you download my entire CD in order to "sample" it, I'd call you a thief.

Downloading isn't taking someone's possessions. No one who infringes copyright is a "thief." They may be infringing on other people's legal rights and possibly natural rights, but it's not stealing.

Exploiting another's work for gain is wrong. If someone had to break into the owner's computer to take data, that's a form of theft. But if someone puts data out there with the legal claim of "ownership" - even though the data isn't truly owned (because it's freely available to be copied at no cost) - then it cannot be called theft.

I'm not saying it's morally right, but I don't believe for a minute that someone who copies music files is despoiling someone else of true possessions. No one can truly "own" freely available data. Having the exclusive legal right to profit from something is one thing. But trying to control freely available data is like trying to control air.

If someone wants to profit from their data, they must ensure it's security. If someone steals the data by some sort of intrusion, that would be a form of theft. Otherwise not.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #22 on:** August 22, 2011, 11:19:03 PM »

I would say code-breaking and decryption are not intrusive.

Breaking into another's computer, however, is.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #23 on:** August 22, 2011, 11:20:40 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

If a sin is involved in downloading just to sample, it is the sin of breaking the law.

It's not about the law. The law is just there to protect those whose livelihoods are in writing, recording, editing, and distributing music. What you've done is taken something from them that they haven't agreed to let you have. It would be silly for them not to provide you any means to sample their work and it's up to them to decide what is acceptable in "sampling" and what is not.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #24 on:** August 22, 2011, 11:25:20 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

It's not about the law. The law is just there to protect those whose livelihoods are in writing, recording, editing, and distributing music. What you've done is taken something from them that they haven't agreed to let you have.

Why is their agreement necessary to have it? It is not theirs to dispose of - it is not a physical possession.

Quote

It would be silly for them not to provide you any means to sample their work and it's up to them to decide what is acceptable in "sampling" and what is not.

It is silly to claim to "own" something that by its very nature cannot be owned.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #25 on:** August 22, 2011, 11:26:08 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: MaterDominici
If you called me up and asked for a sample of the music I sell so that you could determine if you'd like to buy it, in a really generous mood, I'd give you one, complete track. Normally, I'd point you to where you can listen to four or five 30-second samples. So, yes, I think if you download my entire CD in order to "sample" it, I'd call you a thief.

Downloading isn't taking someone's possessions. No one who infringes copyright is a "thief." They may be infringing on other people's legal rights and possibly natural rights, but it's not stealing.

Exploiting another's work for gain is wrong. If someone had to break into the owner's computer to take data, that's a form of theft. But if someone puts data out there with the legal claim of "ownership" - even though the data isn't truly owned (because it's freely available to be copied at no cost) - then it cannot be called theft.

I'm not saying it's morally right, but I don't believe for a minute that someone who copies music files is despoiling someone else of true possessions. No one can truly "own" freely available data. Having the exclusive legal right to profit from something is one thing. But trying to control freely available data is like trying to control air.

If someone wants to profit from their data, they must ensure it's security. If someone steals the data by some sort of intrusion, that would be a form of theft. Otherwise not.

I was under the impression he wasn't so much concerned about how exactly it was wrong, but rather whether or not it was wrong to do so.

To say it's not theft but rather exploitation or ____ just adds confusion if you're still saying that it's morally wrong.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #26 on:** August 22, 2011, 11:27:48 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: MaterDominici
It's not about the law. The law is just there to protect those whose livelihoods are in writing, recording, editing, and distributing music. What you've done is taken something from them that they haven't agreed to let you have.

Why is their agreement necessary to have it? It is not theirs to dispose of - it is not a physical possession.

Quote
It would be silly for them not to provide you any means to sample their work and it's up to them to decide what is acceptable in "sampling" and what is not.

It is silly to claim to "own" something that by its very nature cannot be owned.

Would it then be wrong to take a physical item I've sold you (a CD) and turn it into a digital item that then cannot be owned?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #27 on:** August 22, 2011, 11:29:57 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

To say it's not theft but rather exploitation or ____ just adds confusion if you're still saying that it's morally wrong.

People can have rights with regard to something without being able to claim a right of ownership.

It isn't just to call downloaders "thieves" - anymore than it's right to call someone who sings a song without paying royalties a "thief." Nothing was taken from the "owner." Nothing was taken - because nothing was owned.

What the copyright owner (he "owns" a "right" - not the song, not Archbishop Lefebvre's sermons) has is a right to litigate and collect damages from those who seriously harm their legal right to profit from their copyrighted materials.

This is not an illegitimate right, but it does not make those who infringe it thieves.

I think it's very very wrong to call someone a "thief" for violating copyright - almost тαℓмυdic.

There are many people who have downloaded many songs who would never steal another person's possessions. It's not theft.

Yes. To put this in perspective - anyone who says that someone who disseminates Archbishop Lefebvre's sermons without permission is a "thief" is commiting slander. Such a person has no regard to the true Right - they care about legal rights - but not about righteousness.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #28 on:** August 22, 2011, 11:35:17 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Would it then be wrong to take a physical item I've sold you (a CD) and turn it into a digital item that then cannot be owned?

If you didn't want someone to use data then you shouldn't give them the data. Data is data. It's not a possession. Making a copy of something is not stealing.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #29 on:** August 22, 2011, 11:46:21 PM »

You sound like a lawyer and thus are confusing me. I hope that's not a strategy. : )

So, you buy my CD, copy it and email the music to a fellow music lover and you don't think depriving me of the potential sale is morally wrong?