Author Topic: Sinful? (Read 2499 times)

Ambrose · « **Reply #15 on:** July 21, 2013, 06:43:27 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Let's not forget the SSPX priest who accused a layman of a crime for reading from Archbishop Lefebvre's published and suppressed sermons!

Fr. Scott is not basing this explanation on his own opinion, he states the sources that he is relying on:

Quote

The common opinion of the theologians is that in the natural law they still remain subject to private ownership, and that consequently they cannot be simply pirated.

He does not state or cite which theologians he is relying on, but I have no reason to doubt him. I have looked this up among some moralists and they say what he is saying, and he explained this point very well with precision.

Ambrose · « **Reply #16 on:** July 21, 2013, 06:54:41 AM »

Ryan wrote:

Quote

This is actually a very different situation here Ambrose. The dvd in question contains the official service manual for fixing my car. It is not available anywhere else. And it is no longer even available from the company. The person selling an original has marked the price up 500% and the company which created the product is no longer selling it. They will see no profit from this man's opportunism. If they were still selling it, I would be happy to purchase it from them. But they're not, so I can't. Therefore, do I reward a horrible person for doing what he does, or do I get a copy of something which is no longer being produced, from a person who is barely even turning a profit?

Ryan,

I am not telling you that you can't do this, I have no authority over you. I am giving you the sources so that you can have an informed conscience.

I agree with you that this appears to be an different situation, as the company who provided this, would no longer be receiving compensation from this. It appears to me that you could presume they (the car company) would give permission in this case, as they are in no way benefiting from this service DVD.

Tiffany · « **Reply #17 on:** July 21, 2013, 08:11:28 AM »

I've seen ridiculous things with pattern copyright, the authors try to impose things on it like it's a patent, to where elderly ladies are afraid to auction off something they made for a church bizarre because the author adds all these things like the finished object can't be sold. The copyright is for the actual pattern, it's not an idea being protected. Or women who throw away patterns instead of giving them to the thrift store or ebay because the authors adds they can't resell them, it's ridiculous, when you own it you can sell it for a million or give it away.

Tiffany · « **Reply #18 on:** July 21, 2013, 08:15:34 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote
belongs to him to the extent that he is entitled to derive reasonable profit from his labour. Consequently the law of patent rights and copyright is just...

reasonable profit

Saying that laws of patent and copyrights are just is not the same as saying infringing the letter of the law is a violation of the Commandments.

Catholics are supposed to pay their taxes too, yet St. Alphonsus permits that Catholics may refrain from the full amount when taxes are oppressive.

Is such a person a "thief" - taking the government's property, by keeping what is theirs?

Copying something is not taking possession of someone else's property.

It certainly isn't just when drug companies charge extortionate prices for their drugs on the basis of patent law.

Are you saying someone who buys drugs from overseas is then breaking the Seventh Commandment?

Ridiculous.

Anyone who defends the current scope of these laws protectiong Jєωιѕн monopolies is suffering from scruples.

I buy my medicine from an overseas pharmacy. Under best circuмstances I would be in a coma without it.

Tiffany · « **Reply #19 on:** July 21, 2013, 08:34:39 AM »

I wish I could keep some of this state tax. I claim exempt so no regular federal tax except it taken out except for OASDI, I had 56 hours x $9/hour and my take home was $440. What is this state tax for - so aristocracy at the state capital can live how they do, it's not right.

SoldierOfChrist · « **Reply #20 on:** July 21, 2013, 10:12:54 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Ryan wrote:
Quote

This is actually a very different situation here Ambrose. The dvd in question contains the official service manual for fixing my car. It is not available anywhere else. And it is no longer even available from the company. The person selling an original has marked the price up 500% and the company which created the product is no longer selling it. They will see no profit from this man's opportunism. If they were still selling it, I would be happy to purchase it from them. But they're not, so I can't. Therefore, do I reward a horrible person for doing what he does, or do I get a copy of something which is no longer being produced, from a person who is barely even turning a profit?

Ryan,

I am not telling you that you can't do this, I have no authority over you. I am giving you the sources so that you can have an informed conscience.

I agree with you that this appears to be an different situation, as the company who provided this, would no longer be receiving compensation from this. It appears to me that you could presume they (the car company) would give permission in this case, as they are in no way benefiting from this service DVD.

Thank you for your conscientiousness in finding the Catholic moral teachings on this issue and letting me know about them Ambrose. It has helped me to make an informed decision. I'm sorry for sounding defensive in my response to you, as I recognize the charitable nature with which you provided this information.

Marlelar · « **Reply #21 on:** July 21, 2013, 09:04:47 PM »

Well if the manufacturer is no longer selling it why can't you buy your used copy from either source? Sounds like one guy just wants to get rid of his copy and the other guy wants to make a killing. It's like used books, someone wants to sell his copy for $100, and someone else will sell his for $5 because he neither knows nor cares if it is a hard to find item, just wants it off his shelf.

Marsha

Ambrose · « **Reply #22 on:** July 23, 2013, 12:10:08 AM »

Quote

Thank you for your conscientiousness in finding the Catholic moral teachings on this issue and letting me know about them Ambrose. It has helped me to make an informed decision. I'm sorry for sounding defensive in my response to you, as I recognize the charitable nature with which you provided this information.

Ryan,

No problem at all. The very fact that you are concerned about this tells me that you have a good conscience and want to obey God's Commandments. I am happy that the references helped you with this issue.

ultrarigorist · « **Reply #23 on:** July 26, 2013, 10:17:05 PM »

This is a parallel to the music copying saw. 3 angles.. A recording is less than a live performance (an "echo" if we had to put it in ancient terms, or perhaps listening from a remote place to the stage), and so long as performer earns their keep (practice/composition time, support staff, gear, performance itself) nothing is stolen by an extra copy. Second point is the progression of recording art. When Philips' Compact Cassette was introduced in '64, there were legal cases in the states, with the discovery that recordings not for resale were legal. ASCAP and BME were happy with that. But, it could be argued, these were "lossy" copies (analog), so always inferior. No matter, DAT arrived in the market in due time, permitting infinite generations of lossless copy, and not so much as a squeak from the industry. (But digital audio tape media was never popular) Not til CD burners became ubiquitous, was there a hue and cry from the music industry. So their problem was a loss of profit not for the performers, but for the industry which leeches off them. Third point, is that performances only accrue "worth" by being initially offered gratis ("top 100" on the radio etc.), and if it gains traction, then at some point they decide you need to pay. This of course, is after it's been floated ad nauseam in the Public Domain - for free.