I want to raise an ethical issue for your consideration and input: copying and/or downloading music/movies. Is this a form of theft, or is it morally acceptable? This has become a widespread practice in the culture at large, as well as by Christians.
I am thinking of the following scenarios:
- Your friend purchased a CD you’ve been wanting to listen to. S/he lets you borrow it, and you subsequently download the tracks to your computer and burn them onto a CD to keep for yourself. Is this theft?
- Your friend illegally downloaded a CD you’ve been wanting to listen to. S/he tells you s/he’ll let you borrow it. Should you do so?
- Your friend bought a new Bible study program for his computer. You would like to have it too, but don’t have the money to buy it yourself. Your friend is willing to let you install his copy on your computer. Should you?
- A man on the street is selling bootleg DVDs. Is it morally acceptable to buy them?
- You download movies from the internet for free, and store them on your computer indefinitely, or burn it to a DVD that you keep in your permanent DVD library. Is this theft?
- You download movies from the internet for free, but delete them (or destroy the disk) after you have watched them. Is this theft?
To know whether any of these circumstances involve theft we first must define what theft is. I think this is a good working definition: Theft involves taking something that properly belongs to another person without their permission, and/or using something for which a fee is required without paying the expected fee. Given this definition, I think scenarios 1-5 are examples of theft. Scenario 6 is not so clear. Here is my rationale for each scenario:
Scenario 1: The music company that produced the CD did not give you permission to make a copy. By making a copy of the CD you benefit from the product without paying for it (as the music company expects you to).
Scenario 2: If someone buys goods they know are stolen, they are indirectly complicit in the crime because they knowingly and directly benefiting from that crime. For example, if your friend robs a bank, gives you $50,000 of that money, and you use that money knowing it was stolen, you are indirectly complicit in the crime. I think the same principle holds true for using CDs that have been obtained through theft. Using such CDs also sends a message to your friend that you approve of the means by which they obtained the CD.
Scenario 3: The software company that produced the program did not give you permission to make a copy. By making a copy of the software you benefit from the product without paying for it (as the software company expects you to).
Scenario 4: The bootleg DVDs were created via illegal means. If they were obtained through theft, then those who purchase them are indirectly complicit in the theft in the same way someone who purchases a stolen stereo (knowing it was obtained through theft) is indirectly complicit in the theft.
Scenario 5: The production company that produced the movie did not give you permission to make a copy. By making a copy of the movie you benefit from the product without paying for it (as the owners expect you to).
One might counter-argue that scenarios 1-5 are not examples of theft because nothing physical is being taken from anyone. In each case we are talking about digital information, not tangible objects. This seems to be a bit different than walking into a store and stealing a CD/movie from the shelf (in which case something they have is being taken from them such that they no longer have it). While I would agree that the theft involved in these scenarios takes on a different form than what we typically think of as theft, it is theft nonetheless. If nothing else, the owner is being robbed of the money s/he would have otherwise gained if you had not copied/downloaded their product illegally. You might say, “But they make too much money anyway.” That may or may not be true, but it is irrelevant to the moral question. Bill Gates may have more money than any human being needs, but that would not justify my taking $100 from his wallet. The same holds true of taking music/movies from their owners without paying for use of their material.
One way to see why this is wrong is to use Immanual Kant’s approach to moral reasoning (the categorical imperative). Kant argued that we can determine right and wrong by asking ourselves what the outcome would be if the behavior in question was universalized. For example, if everyone killed other people it would result in the extermination of the human race; therefore, murder is morally wrong. What would happen if everyone downloaded music/movies for free, if everyone bought bootleg DVDs rather than going to the theater to see the movie or buying/renting the DVD, or if everyone installed his/her friend’s computer programs onto their own personal computer? These products would stop being produced. It costs a lot of money to create these products. If those who enjoy them do not pay those who made them, eventually no one will make them anymore. If I spend $10 million dollars to produce a music CD, but only one person buys it for $15, uploads it to a music sharing website, and millions of other people download it for free, you can bet your bottom dollar I will not continue to produce such materials in the future because I cannot afford to do so.
Scenario 6: This one is a bit trickier. On the one hand, given the temporary nature of the use, I’m not sure how much different this is from borrowing a book from a friend or borrowing a DVD from the library, which are clearly not instances of theft. If one deleted the song/movie after enjoying it for a week or two, it may be morally acceptable. Of course, downloading songs/movies for free differs from borrowing books from friends/libraries in that the former is legal while the latter is illegal. As Christians we are called to obey the laws of the land, so we must take this into consideration (even if we might disagree with the law).
What are your thoughts on this issue? Do you have a different perspective on any of the scenarios I raised, or do you have another scenario that “complexifies” the moral issues involved? I would be interested in hearing your input.
December 6, 2010 at 9:18 am
I agree with you all of it is theft but amongst most “Christians” it is a common practice. I once downloaded free music but once I realized it was theft I stopped. I once was given the task to install MS Office 2000 on the church’s pc’s but I refused because he didn’t purchase it. I asked where he got the cd and it was given to him by a district official. I wouldn’t install it still because I couldn’t verify if it was purchased for multiple licenses. The pastor ridiculed me and said the law was stupid when I told him theft wasn’t stupid he turned the tables on me and asked if I was calling him a thief? Then as you could guess he used “touch my anointed”, and used his position to refute what I felt was a moral short coming.
It seems to me that if the digital information is meant to be downloaded for free then it is ok to do so. Many of our Apostolic brothers/sisters have been defrauded because their music has been freely distributed. The artists intent wasn’t for this to be so, even though they may be ok with the practice in some ways.
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 6, 2010 at 4:51 pm
[…] is the original post: The Ethics of Music/Movie Copying & Downloading « Theosophical … VN:R_U [1.9.6_1107]Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)VN:F [1.9.6_1107]Rating: 0 (from 0 […]
LikeLike
December 7, 2010 at 2:48 am
I think the argument becomes more difficult though. What if, given no choice, I would not buy the cd? The artist loses no money. When you talk about stealing a cd from a shop, you remove the chance of the shop from selling the cd. You have stolen money from the shop (since they had to pay for it).
When you talk about digital media, you have not cost the supplier any money which is why I believe most people find it morally acceptable.
Hume’s argument fails also in this scenario, as if everyone did it, music would be free. Artists would still make it, and make their money from concerts etc.
LikeLike
December 7, 2010 at 11:21 am
Scott,
I raised this same objection in my post. While I agree that this is not theft as we normally conceive of it, it is still theft because one is enjoying the benefits of a product for which they are expected to pay, without actually paying for it.
It would be similar to sneaking into a movie theater without paying for the ticket. Given your reasoning, why think this is wrong? After all, the moview would have played anyway, and you haven’t stolen any physical thing from the theater. But most people would recognize this as wrong because you are enjoying the movie without paying for it (with the knowledge that the movie theater expects you to pay for it). Indeed, if everyone did this, movie theaters could not afford to keep their doors open.
As for Hume’s argument, I don’t think it fails in this case. Concerts do not pay for the production and distribution of CDs–record labels do. And if everyone just copied a single purchased CD, the record labels would cease producing and distributing the music.
Finally, the fact remains that the practice is illegal. Not only do the record labels prohibit it, but so does the government. As Christians we are called to obey the law.
Jason
LikeLike
December 10, 2010 at 2:24 am
Jason, you specifically mentioned “If nothing else, the owner is being robbed of the money s/he would have otherwise gained if you had not copied/downloaded their product illegally.”
However, some people argue that since they would never purchase it, then they have not created the situation that the artist/producer lose money.
The issue is with the definition of theft. You have not stolen the film when you sneak into the theatre. You are trespassing and using the facilities without permission. Similarly, when you download the music, it is hard to understand how “theft” is taking place. You are clearly in breach of copyright law though.
While I agree that as christians we should not do so (since it is currently against the law) I do think that the law should change re: copyright and so sympathise (only slightly) with the heathens that commit the crime.
You make a comment about the record labels ceasing to produce and distribute. I agree, but the Arctic Monkeys started up without them among others so in essence, the music industry would adapt rather than vanish. The same would not hold true for the theatre though…
LikeLike
December 11, 2010 at 11:15 am
Greetings! Brother Dulle
You said: Your friend purchased a CD you’ve been wanting to listen to. S/he lets you borrow it, and you subsequently download the tracks to your computer and burn them onto a CD to keep for yourself. Is this theft?
My response: No, it is not theft due to the fact that your friend allowed you to borrow his/her cd and it would not be a heavenly violation to download the tracks off the cd.
You said: Your friend illegally downloaded a CD you’ve been wanting to listen to. S/he tells you s/he’ll let you borrow it. Should you do so?
My response: No, it would be theft due to the fact that your friend did not purchase the cd but acquired it illegally which means to receive the cd would be condoning the act of stealing.
You said: Your friend bought a new Bible study program for his computer. You would like to have it too, but don’t have the money to buy it yourself. Your friend is willing to let you install his copy on your computer. Should you?
My response: Yes, as with the first scenario your friend has purchased the software which means it is his/her possession which means it is justifiable to allow your friend to download the software onto your computer
You said: A man on the street is selling bootleg DVDs. Is it morally acceptable to buy them?
My response: No, it is theft due to the fact that the man on the street did not purchase the dvds, cds or videos.
You said: You download movies from the internet for free, and store them on your computer indefinitely, or burn it to a DVD that you keep in your permanent DVD library. Is this theft?
My response: No, it is not theft due to the fact that the movies online were freely accessible unto you.
You said: You download movies from the internet for free, but delete them (or destroy the disk) after you have watched them. Is this theft?
My response: No, it is not theft as I said above one was allowed free access via the internet to view the movies and download them.
When it comes to circumstances/situations in this life one must possess the wisdom of God Almighty which grants man divine skill and knowledge of understanding to discern the appropriate course of action.
Peace be unto you!
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
December 12, 2010 at 9:18 am
CS,
I hope you’re still not a part of that church group ?
Naz
LikeLike
December 13, 2010 at 11:15 am
Greetings! Naz and CS and Jason Dulle
You merely lack and understanding and wisdom of the holy scriptures which is leading you to lay unneccessary condemnation upon yourselves.
I thank God Almighty for the truth of Holiness that grants me wisdom, knowledge, and divine understanding that grants me freedom of mind, heart and body without condemnation that I may live a perfect life in these last and evil days.
May the God of all grace continue to have mercy upon your soul. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
December 13, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Scott,
But if they would never purchase it otherwise, then they shouldn’t have it now! The fact that they have it means they wanted it, which means they would have purchased it. Why didn’t they? Was it because they didn’t have the money to purchase it? Then they shouldn’t be enjoying it. Taking something you want without paying for it is normally called stealing.
I never claimed such an individual is stealing the film. What they are doing is depriving the theatre of the revenue that rightly belongs to them for putting up the costs necessary to build the theatre, staff it, buy the movies, etc. And most people would recognize this act as wrong. Inasmuch as illegal downloading does the same thing, we should also recognize it as wrong. I think the reason the latter is accepted is because it is done so often by so many people, and because it can be done privately.
Jason
LikeLike
December 15, 2010 at 8:45 pm
Mr. Burton,
Condemnation ? I don’t feel any condemnation ?
May the God of all grace continue to have mercy on your soul in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Naz
LikeLike
December 16, 2010 at 10:27 am
I just read this morning that in the UK, 75% of all music downloads are illegally obtained. I’m not surprised. Why do people do it? The #1 reason was that they don’t want to pay for it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1339103/BPI-boss-Geoff-Taylor-File-sharers-parasites-1-2bn-illegally-download-music-2010.html
Jason
LikeLike
December 16, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Greetings! Naz
I urge you all to follow the truth of God that you may obtain perfect knowledge, understanding and wisdom of whom God is and his everlasting way called Holiness that you may be accounted worthy of life eternal (http://www.truthofGod.com)
Peace be unto you!
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
December 17, 2010 at 5:44 am
Jason,
The reason people do it is three-fold.
Firstly, it is easy
Secondly, They do not agree to the price of the music that can be obtained legally
Thirdly, they don’t see it as theft and would disagree with your definition.
I heard an interesting comment someone made when commenting on this sort of thing. You know when the anti-piracy trailer is on the dvd? Well they said that if they could download a car, then they would.
I believe that people do not see that a digital recording can be “owned” by anyone, therefore, it belongs to everyone.
I have no idea which will break first, peoples attitudes or the way music is sold.
LikeLike
December 19, 2010 at 12:02 am
Ethics item 7: A friend buys clothes and wears them in public without cutting the tags off. Given financial restrictions, there is a very reasonable chance the clothing will be returned (unless the number of compliments received merits the cost). The friend proceeds to return the used items after a handful of uses, retrieving his money spent on the clothes. He refers to this as “condoms for clothes.”. Ethical or not? 🙂
LikeLike
December 20, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Jason, as you know we are accountable to do the morally and upright thing in the eyes of God first and secondly we are obligated to follow the laws of the land and be subject to governments etc..
With this in mind, you can look at the above scenarios and first ask,
“Is it against the laws of the land”?
I must admit I am not totally familiar with all the copyright laws and how they apply to certain media. I think it is good to be informed about the laws of the land as a starting point.
If it is against the laws of land, then you should refrain from doing so. If it is not, then you should ask,
“Does it violate God’s moral standard some how”?
If it does not violate a godly principle then I believe it is permissible.
I know this is sort of simplistic, but this is how I view these sorts of things.
There are a lot of difficult scenarios in life that we are faced with. I think if out intent is righteous and we apply sound biblical principles we will be OK most of the time. God’s grace will take care of the rest………
Naz
LikeLike
December 20, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Scott,
Yes, people find it easy, but it is just as easy to obtain the music through a pay-for site as it is through an illegal downloading site. The reason people don’t pay for it is not because of ease, but because they don’t want to pay.
As for your second reason, I find this one difficult to believe since most of these same people paid the asking price for the music prior to it being made available in electronic format. If they would pay $15 in the “old days,” why won’t they pay $15 today? In fact, today they can just pay for the songs they like, so whereas they used to have to pay $15 just to get the one song they wanted, today they can just pay $1. And yet they still choose to do it for free.
As for your third reason, that may be. I’m sure there are some polls out there that may have this information recorded. I tend to think that a majority of illegal downloaders at least know that it is illegal, and therefore legally wrong. It would be interesting to see how many people illegally download music who also believe it is morally wrong, but just “not that bad.” I know of someone personally who admits that it is stealing, but doesn’t think it’s a big deal.
Jason
LikeLike
December 20, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Naz,
I agree with your approach. In the case of downloading music, it is both a moral and legal issue. It is a moral issue because those who provide the music/movies/software expect for those using it to pay for it first, and if we do not do so, then we are stealing. It is a legal issue as well since there are laws that prohibit it.
Jason
LikeLike
June 2, 2011 at 7:30 pm
[…] of the following situations have been presented in another blog I have read, “The Ethics of Music/Movie Copying & Downloading.” It really does make one think and can open our eyes to what is going on in every hour of every day. […]
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 12:56 pm
When I was younger I used to record the top 40 off the radio onto cassette and cut out my favourite songs. This felt ok back then? I could do the same today but it would be easier to download the top 40 each week. Is there much difference? In my opinion it is wrong that dvd’s and cd’s are still sold in shops. The manufacturing of hard copies is just a waste of resources. Most sales should be digital and a damn site cheaper than they are currently. The internet companies have been making the big profits from illegal downloads till now. It’s time to restructure the whole music/movie industry. I’m sure most people would be willing to contribute to being allowed to download copyrighted material on a monthly basis. The money could be distributed to the relevant companies accordingly.
LikeLike
February 27, 2012 at 3:56 pm
Hip Hop Creation Software…
[…]The Ethics of Music/Movie Copying & Downloading « Theo-sophical Ruminations[…]…
LikeLike
August 13, 2012 at 5:15 am
Hi Jason,
Thank you for your site. I have been considering deleting all of my illegal music, and have found it is kind of an idol in my life because it is actually difficult to make the decision, despite me knowing it is wrong. But I still have some questions:
1. Is it okay to download music I have purchased as CD’s, and throw away the CD’s because I don’t want to keep the CD’s anymore? I don’t give the CD’s to anyone.
2. I downloaded some music from Youtube, but I don’t know how to purchase the music because I don’t know the artist or title. Should I delete it anyway?
3. I listen to music on youtube over and over again, but do not purchase or download it. OK? I have a feeling that it is immoral to listen to any music at all on youtube which is copyrighted.
4. I copy/pasted the NIV text from biblegateway onto a document so I can read it when I don’t have internet. Bad?
Thanks!
– Dean
LikeLike
August 13, 2012 at 5:45 am
And one more: would you say performing copyrighted music is also problematic? In church or in small groups? I think there are procedures for securing performing rights to songs, so should we get those? Thanks. -dean
LikeLike
August 13, 2012 at 10:45 am
Dean, I can’t tell if you are being serious or if you are trying to poke fun at my position. I assume the latter, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and answer your questions anyway.
1. From a moral perspective, I don’t see what would be wrong with doing so, but I’m not sure if it would be legal even in that case. A more practical option is to download your CDs onto your computer.
2. Do you mean you downloaded music videos? There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s no different than recording what’s played on MTV or recording songs played on the radio.
3. Labels and artists want their videos on YouTube. It gives them extra exposure. This is no different than listening to music on the radio or watching videos on MTV.
4. There’s nothing wrong with that. The copyright laws don’t forbid you from doing so.
5. I don’t know what the laws are in regards to this.
Jason
LikeLike
December 17, 2012 at 5:47 pm
I agree it is morally wrong. However sales of music have not gone down. If I downloaded music it’s usually low quality so I it wouldn’t do anyways. Most people are picky and want high quality recordings. It’s nothing different when tape recorders or cd became available, music companies didn’t like it and claimed it would reduce their sales but in fact it actually increased sales. Because they listen to the music enough times they wanted to actually support it.
I used to buy quite a few movies when I used to download movies but now I don’t even watch American made files let alone downloading it. I don’t want to support the industry because they have become greedy again. Now I just watch live Korean drama while is legally available for me to watch. I think if more people just quit downloading movies and music and just stop supporting the industry it will do a lot of good. they will see that downloading movies and music is actually helping their industry not hurting them. Btw it’s funny because I can get most movies for free or at cost because I work for a company that sells movies and music. But I rarely buy movies anymore.
LikeLike
December 18, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Mike, do you have any industry statistics to support your claim that music sales have gone up? And remember, to demonstrate that one must look at more than $ sales since inflation and population increases can account for larger $ sales even if the sales:population ratio has gone down.
I should also point out that even if sales were not decreasing overall, it does not change the moral question. It would still be the case that downloading music without paying for it is theft since one is getting the benefit of the product without paying the expected fee for that benefit.
LikeLike
October 8, 2019 at 1:23 pm
The Categorical Imperative was offered by Kant, not Hume.
Moreover, it is not the basis for morality. The basis for morality is God as the maximal Good and our ultimate end or object. To base morality on value-imposed consequences is also off-target because it makes morality subjective rather than objective. Kant would call that approach (though endorsing it) an imperfect duty (due to its subjective nature).
His “perfect duty” is the universalization of a principle (without regard for particular circumstances, feelings, etc.) that is free from logical contradiction. If the adoption of a principle results in a logical contradiction, it must be rejected by rational people. But here it is obvious that this approach is at best secondary and not primary. Why is it good to be logically consistent? And why must an approach be “universalized”? The “Good,” then must be a higher order principle, and that Good is of course God.
LikeLike
October 9, 2019 at 8:15 pm
Scalia, thanks for pointing out my error. I’ve corrected that. Big miss.
As for the CI, I don’t think it is the basis for morality.
LikeLike
October 10, 2020 at 10:35 pm
[…] easy and innocent enough it is not. While looking into the Ethics of Piracy I found on the site https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/the-ethics-of-musicmovie-copying-downloading/ an example of Piracy, that example is if you borrow a CD from a friend, and you download and burn […]
LikeLike
January 11, 2021 at 8:05 am
[…] easy and innocent enough it is not. While looking into the Ethics of Piracy I found on the site https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/the-ethics-of-musicmovie-copying-downloading/ an example of Piracy, that example is if you borrow a CD from a friend, and you download and burn […]
LikeLike
March 9, 2021 at 4:55 pm
[…] easy and innocent enough it is not. While looking into the Ethics of Piracy I found on the site https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/the-ethics-of-musicmovie-copying-downloading/ an example of Piracy, that example is if you borrow a CD from a friend, and you download and burn […]
LikeLike
March 24, 2021 at 7:29 am
[…] easy and innocent enough it is not. While looking into the Ethics of Piracy I found on the site https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/the-ethics-of-musicmovie-copying-downloading/ an example of Piracy, that example is if you borrow a CD from a friend, and you download and burn […]
LikeLike
March 25, 2021 at 6:36 am
[…] easy and innocent enough it is not. While looking into the Ethics of Piracy I found on the site https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/the-ethics-of-musicmovie-copying-downloading/ an example of Piracy, that example is if you borrow a CD from a friend, and you download and burn […]
LikeLike
April 24, 2021 at 5:10 pm
[…] easy and innocent enough it is not. While looking into the Ethics of Piracy I found on the site https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/the-ethics-of-musicmovie-copying-downloading/ an example of Piracy, that example is if you borrow a CD from a friend, and you download and burn […]
LikeLike
July 11, 2021 at 11:15 pm
[…] easy and innocent enough it is not. While looking into the Ethics of Piracy I found on the site https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/the-ethics-of-musicmovie-copying-downloading/ an example of Piracy, that example is if you borrow a CD from a friend, and you download and burn […]
LikeLike
August 17, 2021 at 6:51 pm
[…] easy and innocent enough it is not. While looking into the Ethics of Piracy I found on the site https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/the-ethics-of-musicmovie-copying-downloading/ an example of Piracy, that example is if you borrow a CD from a friend, and you download and burn […]
LikeLike
August 21, 2021 at 10:29 am
[…] easy and innocent enough it is not. While looking into the Ethics of Piracy I found on the site https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/the-ethics-of-musicmovie-copying-downloading/ an example of Piracy, that example is if you borrow a CD from a friend, and you download and burn […]
LikeLike