/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>816845

Yes it's stealing. For some people their entire income is from digital media, pirates are affecting their livelihood.

If someone chooses to pirate something created in a poor country, it might mean that developer is going without food that day.

>>816845

>Is digital piracy considered stealing and thus a mortal sin ?

Since no one gets depraved from ownership, and nothing gets lost, it's not a mortal sin.

Lots of pirated stuff would never get bought in the first place, and most smaller artists get the support for their music through their fans.

I buy all my vidya, but almost all my music is pirated.

I try to support musicians through Bandcamp or buying merch.

Here's another way to look at it:

For everyone who pirates Adobe Photoshop, freeware alternative GIMP (or whatever else) misses out on a user. For everyone who pirates a stack of Metallica albums, an aspiring artist without a record label loses out on a fan.

All my favorite apps and games are freeware.

There was no such thing as copyright 2000 years ago (that's what we're talking about- for all the flash of the word "piracy" we're talking about the right to make copies). Books and scrolls got copied and the authors got nothing for those copies.

But it was expensive and time consuming, and didn't really become an issue until the creation of the printing press.

Perhaps it's the sin of coveting, or of not loving your neighbour (by depriving him of his deserved reward for his effort), but it's not stealing.

>>816848

>>816866

I'm open to the idea of piracy being a sin but these are not arguments.

>>816874

I'd also add that a public library deprives authors of income every time a book is borrowed instead of purchased (yet public libraries are applauded). Also no-one would think they owned a song centuries ago. Quite a few famous songs where new words were added to existing music would be considered copyright breaches today yet they're still celebrated as classics.

I actually remember when I was in prot Bible study bowling night or some crap the youth leader said something like how we sin even if we know it's bad because it's socially acceptable and he used the example of piracy and when I asked why it was bad he said it was stealing. I basically said "it's making a copy, if that's stealing then Jesus feeding the multitudes with fish and bread was stealing." He said that wasn't the same and I asked why but he couldn't say.

>>816874

>or of not loving your neighbour (by depriving him of his deserved reward for his effort)

Who is to say what the deserved reward is? If someone is not willing to voluntarily pay for it uncoerced, I don't know how you could argue that pay is deserved.

>>816889

Yeah but why is it bad? Can anyone explain using Church teachings what makes it sinful? Feelings don't count.

>>816887

There you'd say they don't have to pay for it or be coerced, they don't have to have a copy at all.

I'm still not sure where I stand on it overall, I'm just spitballing. Look at the issue where copyrights have different lengths in different countries - it's a bit silly to say it's a sin to copy it in one and but not in the other. What about the creeping length of copyright? In the US for example it was originally 14 years, then 50, now 70 (and boy are some corporations trying to that extended again). Does that change whether it's a sin?

Again, 2000 years ago no-one considered copying a scroll or book to be sinful. The closest people came to discussing authors rights was regarding attribution and making changes to someones work.

>>816845

In general yes, but in specific cases I wouldn't say so if the owner would reasonably be expected to agree - there is no theft going on if the owner agrees, and I heavily doubt the lawgiver cares about you downloading it in such cases if you don't cause problems if caught.

>>816845

It's not a sin, it can only be a sin if it is illegal because there is rarely ever a need for pirated content that could over-ride the duty to follow a law that is just (as in doesn't call for sin).

>>816901

Isn't a law advocating violence for a nonsinful action (piracy) itself sinful?

>>816875

I'd say it's a sin insofar disobeying any State command without a just reason is a sin?

>>816902

Maybe. But the same could be said about many, many laws. But we are the follow them like St. Paul said, unless it contradicts the wills of God. But even when it does, we owe them submission, not obedience. The distinction between submission and obedience is this: a Christian refuses to fight in a war for his nation (non-obedience), but accepts the punishment for doing so (submission). A Christian doesn't deny Christ for his state (non-obedience), but accepts martyrdom as the price for doing so (submission).

What if the pirated content is old and the creator would not gain any money from it, or if it was never made available to purchase for you?

Just curious, yet at the same time I feel we don't have our priorities straight if we are trying to figure out how to do a worldly thing without sinning.

>>816919

I was initially incorrect. Abandonware, while strictly speaking is piracy, it is to the point that it is almost unenforceable. It's technically illegal, but you'd have to be a real penny-pincher to actively prosecute a case. Part of this is the fault of the US copyright laws (which are nightmarish and ridiculous as most copyright laws are). In my mind, laws regarding copyright for old media is incredibly irrelevant morally to the average man. You can make a case for the morality of copyright laws for new or maintained media.

We have this thread every month.

>>816924

And people continue in their sin, and ignore the truth, every month

>>816845

depends on the siutation

if you literally cannot buy the thing i.e. if its in a different country that doesn't ship or sell in your country or the game is well beyond being sold by retailers then I don't really see how you can class it as "stealing" and nobody is even theoretically making money off of it, but pirating a day 1 release seems a bit dishonest

I'm so afraid of sinning due to violating copyright laws, I don't even watch Super Mario 64 TASs or videos explaining them.

>>816928

It doesn't help that people

1) dont read the catalog

2) ask questions that dont deserve their own thread

3) multipost accidentally like a newfriend

4) post sodomite garbage

>>816924

>We have this thread every month.

Well, sorry for being concerned over the fact that I may or may not burn in the eternal fire of Hell because we don't know if digital piracy is a mortal sin that will send you straight to hell.

The closest metaphor for piracy I can think of is a bookstore. Imagine a bookstore, then a guy goes in, pulls a book off the shelf, takes out his phone, takes a photo of every page, and then puts it back on the shelf and walks off without buying anything. It really isn't the same thing as theft, but I'm not convinced at all that it isn't sinful.

>>816976

But there are people reading entire books in the library and even in the bookstore, some bookstore even have a dedicated place for reading the books.

>>816978

>But there are people reading entire books in the library

Libraries are by and large publicly funded, you have already paid for the books through your taxes

>even in the bookstore

And that's going against the principles of the bookstore - I'd imagine you'd get kicked out if the staff realised you were only there to read the books without buying them. If it was cool for everyone just to read the books in the store, the bookstores would go out of business because they don't sell anything.

Piracy really F's some people, maybe not huge companies but small developers and artists definitely feel the effects. Music piracy led to the advent of streaming, and now independent musicians have to work side jobs to get by because streaming royalties are so low. Before piracy it was easy to get by on record sales alone even without a big label behind you

>>816976

I imagine it as being akin to sneaking into a movie theater, music concert or sports event without paying. You're not stealing from anyone, but you're still violating the rights of the owner of the place.

>>816922

This. My ideal system would be a fixed-term of 25 years copyright for all works. 100 years of copyright is absurd and if you can't make money without milking old media you're a bad artist anyways.

There are much more pressing matters than "is downloading music bad!?!"

>>817015

It's a very pressing matter since this thread shows many Christians engage in piracy while using athiest tier mental gymnastics to justify it.

>>816990

>Music piracy led to the advent of streaming, and now independent musicians have to work side jobs to get by because streaming royalties are so low

It's hard to wrap my head around how dumb this argument is.

>>817016

Not saying it isn't a sin but in this thread the only people using mental gymnastics are the ones trying to explain why it is.

>>817020

You've no self self awareness. You've posted seven times, trying to desperately convince yourself that it isn't a sin.

You respond to arguements by saying it isn't an arguement then write things like "Feelings don't count." like what athiests say when they hear pro-life arguments.

In this post >>816887 you sound like an entitled teenager who thinks he deserves free entertainment.

>>817021

Okay still no argument lol

>>817015

So what? OP asked a question and the christanons are trying to answer it.

>>817016

No mental gymnastics are required. 2000+ years ago when Jesus walked the earth, not to mention thousands of years prior to that when Moses brought down the commandment "Thou shall not steal", no one on earth had ever conceived of the bizarre, insane doctrine that copying a file is equivalent to stealing it. It's a baseless modernist delusion.

>>817030

Intellectual property is still property. Downloading something without giving the owner their just compensation is theft.

>>817033

>Intellectual property is still property.

Not according to Jesus.

>>817034

If people don't own the things they create does that mean it isn't a sin if I pirate a movie then decide to sell copies of it?

Also, do you think sneaking into a theatre, cinema or a bus without paying for it is a sin?

>>817038

>If people don't own the things they create does that mean it isn't a sin if I pirate a movie then decide to sell copies of it?

Possibly, but not because it's stealing

>Also, do you think sneaking into a theatre, cinema or a bus without paying for it is a sin?

Yes, because that is trespassing

>>816891

Romans 13

>>816845

The entire western entertainment industry is a drug for the masses, it is weaponized by secret agencies, military, science, politics, education and commerce, as a means of social engineering and eugenics. It's part of predatory capitalism, and it aims to make the populace less fertile, less intelligent, and less involved in real life.

Before 2007 the entertainment industry was a means of control that slowly planted seeds of self destruction and shaped the so called zeitgeist. After 2007 it became a weapon to destroy the western civilization. Copyright stole the natural human right to creatively build on the achievements of their ancestors, and put it into the hands of organized crime, who put a insane paywall in front of creativity. The very same people responsible for this used child pornography to make the copyright laws as draconian as possible, while also forcing censorship laws upon the internet to destroy that as well. All media uses specific sounds and visual effects to cause mental and physical harm to the audience, and all the entertainment industries are involved with criminal racketeering and every immoral practice one could imagine.

This industry destroys the works of the past, it exploits present artists and consumers alike, and it corrupts the future of creativity by systematically driving the quality out of their products, and preventing any form of true creativity to emerge without it getting bought off and thereby stopped on it's tracks.

If you have any moral quarrels to copy from this evil, then look no further than the pornography industry. Endless prostitution, sexual abuse, and degeneracy in the best quality imaginable…supplied free for everyone. It's coming from the very same people that threaten to sue you into bankruptcy if you download one of their propaganda pieces.

Anon, stay away from all the entertainment poison. It's a drug that aims to destroy you and every cent you spend on it is being used to harm more people. Instead download every form of useful information you can get, learn from it, share it with others, and support people around you directly instead of paying them with usury money. This nightmare system can only operate because people like you pay into it. Don't feed the devil, anon.

>>816845

Yes

It gets you in the mindset of "if I can't or don't want to pay for entertainment, I'm entitled to it anyway" so I discerned it was a sin just following my conscience and stopped pirating anime and vidya.

>>816882

>He said that wasn't the same and I asked why but he couldn't say.

Because Jesus was giving it away freely. If Peter was intending on selling the fish and Jesus took it, multiplied it and gave it away for free against Peters wishes then yes it would be stealing.

It's not really hard to understand. The whole "making copies" argument is a non-sequitur. The issue has to do with someone creating a product that they want to offer to others, if you take it for free even if it's a "copy" you're using a product and depriving them of the value they want in recompense for utilizing their work. Just because something is digital and can be copied without cost doesn't mean that it should be free, especially when people earn a living by creating those products.

It's unethical and Christians simply should not pirate. Nor should Christians try to justify piracy with self serving arguments about how they're only using a "copy"

>>817062

>I had no intention of purchasing the media I "pirate" to begin with

Then why do you have the right to use it against the creators wishes? Saying "It's a copy so it doesn't hurt anyone" is not an argument, the point is you're utilizing property someone created against their will while providing no recompense for the utility you're getting from it.

>>817082

What about the local merchants, farmers and fishermen who missed out on sales of food? A lot of those people would've left and eaten elsewhere if the free copies weren't available. Just because Peter wasn't selling doesn't mean others weren't.

But what about public libraries? Every time something gets borrowed the author misses a book sale (and lately dvds and ebooks). What about 2nd hand of books or dvds or games? That's indistinguishable from piracy from the creators perspective - a missed sale.

>>817019

That's not a graceful reply brother, I'm not dumb, and many people I know have experienced this exact thing that I've mentioned and their incomes affected by piracy. I've seen careers basically end because streaming royalties aren't viable. I notice that in all your replies you haven't offered any counter arguments

>>817083

>the point is you're utilizing property someone created against their will while providing no recompense for the utility you're getting from it.

If the product is on par and not overpriced, they will get the money.

>>817082

>If Peter was intending on selling the fish and Jesus took it, multiplied it and gave it away for free against Peters wishes then yes it would be stealing.

But that's per definition not stealing, since Peter did not lose anything.

You could argue that it was against Peter's wishes, but it's per definition not stealing.

>if you take it for free even if it's a "copy" you're using a product and depriving them of the value they want in recompense for utilizing their work

The thing is, good and not overpriced product sells itself.

I'm not going to buy a 40min decent album digitally for over €5.

My rule of thumb is that entertainment (whether vidya or music or movies) should give 2h entertainment per euro I spend on it.

Dark Souls gave me 150 hours of playtime, while only costing me €40 in a sale, thus outdoing a lot of competition and this also shows in their sales.

If a music album is decent but I won't listen to it more than once then it's not worth more than €2 tops.

Sales can also be boosted by selling merch, and not using a production label that takes 90% of your money.

Bandcamp takes max 15% of the sales revenue compared to production labels, making it possible to sell your music both cheaper AND more profitable.

>>817287

Shitty, overpriced products led to piracy.

>I've seen careers basically end because streaming royalties aren't viable.

Streaming is not the only form of revenue an artist can make.

Combine streaming with selling albums and merch, while doing a bit of touring will get you money IF you're good enough.

>>816848

>stealing future profits

>stealing things that do not exist

>stealing

Yeah, no.

That and ideas are not owned, they are not created, they are discovered and they belong to no specific person.

Copyright is usury.

Also, if somebody pays for a product and decides to freely share it, there is no moral argument to be made against those who take from it. The price was already paid.

>>816901

Piracy is legal in my country. Is morality relative now, because it's ok for me to do it but nor for you?

>>817322

>Also, if somebody pays for a product and decides to freely share it, there is no moral argument to be made against those who take from it

But if the EULA specifically forbids you from doing such you'd be sinning, as you gave your word without the intention to keep it.

>>817324

>ignoring attempts at usury is sinful

Nah.

>>817325

The guy who cured polio did pretty much just that.

It is wrong to create works of art with the exception of getting paid anyway. Just look at our current art scene and you will see where that outlook leads.

>>817331

>exception

expectation*

>>817324

>buy book

>scan it

>put it up for download for free

>doing pretty much what libraries do, but avoiding the middle man

>hurr durr this is totally a sin and totally not me defending money interests

Even better:

>have digital property

>make it available for public consumption without having to download it

>piracy isn't a sin, but this is even father away from being a sin

EVEN BETTER

>see poetry book

>open it

>a verse sticks with me

>I leave the bookshop with a copy of a verse in my mind that I never paid for

tl;dr

"piracy" is not theft, it's people sharing what they have without money interest and government interference, and the jews can't stand it

>>817325

On a related note: Would it be sinful to hold back a cure because you want profits?

>>817337

I did not say it is theft. But if you claim to agree with the conditions of use of a software when you really disagree with them - isn't that bearing false witness?

>>817344

That depends on the software I imagine and the specific details of the user agreement, but then again a bunch of software doesn't have anything of the sort, including most videogames.

That and you must keep in mind that legalism and the letter of the law will always be crushed by the spirit of the law. The idea that one isn't supposed to share a game for example is ludicrous.

One could make the argument that if a software contains sensitive information that may come to harm the reputation of someone it is wrong to share it.

>>816845

I would say it is a less severe form of theft, and therefor one would not be in a state of mortal sin because of it but it is still sinful generally speaking. Either that, or it is not a mortal sin to do so in ignorance and thoughtlessness, but now that you are not in ignorance, it is mortally sinful. Regardless you shouldn't do it.

I for example stopped reading manga/anime, as well as torranting. Its kind of lame because there aren't any good options for reading manga online, i'm legit gonna have to buy books when I don't care to own them.

>>817351

>I for example stopped reading manga/anime, as well as torranting

I did the same. It was one the hardest things I gave up after I became a Christian. It took me two years before I finally had the courage to delete my pirated anime and games.

>>817347

I see. I don't have a problem with lending books or games, but I feel piracy creates an unhealthy sense of entitlement in the mind of the one who pirates, as that other anon said earlier.

I do think modern copyright laws are borderline extortion, though. I hold them partially responsible for the soulless, uncreative franchises that plague popular "culture" nowadays.

>>816854

Well written. The big companies know that their stuff is being pirated, most private individuals could never afford those absurd prices, but Adobe still profits because those individuals only know know the big software, they associate the software with the very field (note how "photoshopping" or "googling" have become common terms), and by using and sharing files in those formats you promote the use of the software to other people.

> freeware

Now this one I have a problem with. Gimp is freeware, as in you don't have to pay money for it, but more importantly it is also Free Software, as in you have freedom. You can use it for whatever purpose you want, you can inspect how it works, you can modify how it works, you can share your modifications and you can share the software. Lots of harmful software is freeware, just look at all the social media, Freedom is what matters.

>>817357

>I feel piracy creates an unhealthy sense of entitlement

Actually copyright and capitalism does that.

You see, once you make a product about profit, it makes everyone entitled. Just look at the state of sex in our society. Everyone feels they are entitled to a perfect virginal princess, who also performs in bed like a pornstar, because we turned sexuality into a consumer product that can be accessed through money. Of course the free alternatives also started popping up and everyone is debased in the process. This applies to all art as well. People feel entitled to receive what their money is worth, but since art is so depraved they no longer feel generous about it, so they prefer to review it before they pay for it. There is nothing logical about paying for a movie or a book or a video game that you don't know the contents of yet. You are expected to pay for a product that you don't know the contents of. Madness.

>>817475

>usury is the idea that you can create more wealth by rubbing 2 coins together, as such you can create wealth without work

>copyright is the idea that after you created and sold product you can tell people what to do and not to do with their own property, because you think that because you performed a job once you are entitled to endless revenue

The only difference between usury and copyright is that in usury you don't do any work at all but expect profit, while in copyright you perform ONE work and then expect eternal, unceasing profit.

>>817301

>Combine streaming with selling albums

People don't buy albums anymore thanks to piracy and streaming

>and merch

A lot of musicians make more money selling merch than selling albums. If you go to a concert I can almost guarantee most artists will charge more for a t-shirt than they do for an album. I've even heard of artists ceasing to sell their albums at gigs because more people were buying albums than t-shirts. Before piracy and streaming nobody had to do this.

>while doing a bit of touring will get you money

touring is extremely expensive and artists often lose money by touring - unless you're a superstar and you're selling out venues everywhere you go, you'll be lucky to break even.

>IF you're good enough.

Just selling records used to be good enough before piracy all but destroyed the record industry. Read 'How Music Got Free' by Stephen Witt, really interesting (and unbiased unlike me) book about the advent of piracy and its effects

I would argue that the damages of piracy are neutral to moderately beneficial. Despite complaints by the creators, piracy is often good for exposure, which is especially useful in gaming where it is customary to buy the games you like after you've pirated it.

To restrict piracy would take a lot of effort - such laws are practically unenforceable. Regardless of whether or not it is actually wrong, people have to build around piracy anyways. You really might as well give in (as a creator), especially considering that the harm actually isn't that bad. I have a dog who kept going on my couch, and i'd spank him every time he did it, but no matter how much I spanked him or how severely, he would never stop trying, so eventually I gave up and made him his own couch. Now a days I let him on the couch all together - it just isn't worth trying to stop him. There are ways to adapt to piracy to reduce the negative effects. It would be better to allow people to copy your product, and make sales with some other indirect method, like t-shirts or cosmetic items.

Some like to say "well if everyone pirated, then they would have no sales", however literally everyone pirates, and yet there are still products and sales; evidently this is not actually true in practice; people of good will buy the product if they like it. The ones that never pay, usually wouldn't have bought it anyways. Yes there is some money that could have been gained that is lost due to piracy, but isn't there also some money that wouldn't have been made that was gained due to piracy? It generally evens out, in fact it's often beneficial.

Arguably, content creators simply do not have the right to prevent people from copying their work. Now I have heard of a licence to work in an area, like in guilds, but a licence to copy? Can one even have the authority to make such a law that prevents him from making a copy for himself? No authority has the ability to enforce it, and often times the moral law tends to end where enforcability ends. [no I am not suggesting might is right, this just actually tends to be the case.]

I think we can all agree however that piracy is at the very least a breach of good will, and is not the most proper way of doing things. It's definitely bm to the author to copy his work without buying it.

So in light of this, I would say piracy is a somewhat silly issue, like how the pharases complained of the disciples who plucked grain on the sabbath - like really, this isn't causing a big problem, so if it is even a sin at all, I would think it is a minor sin at worst. like "oh no, I copied someone elses product for myself instead of buying it". This is clearly not a grave issue, even if it maybe is an issue.

even so, in spite of saying all of this I actually do not pirate, and I refuse to pirate. In my own experience it has not seemed to be God's will, and so I would recommend against it.

>>816894

I would say that it's not stealing or a mortal sin, but depending on where you live if you're breaking the law by doing it then it's a venial sin by that fact. We shouldn't feel that we can break the law for our own convenience or entertainment.

Copyright didn't exist 2000 years ago, now it is enforced by law whether we like it or not. Though I do think it needs to be redone. It wasn't designed with the possibility of digital media in mind. I would personally say that "piracy" doesn't hurt sales and that 70 years is a ridiculous length. If you can't find a way to add value to a digital product in new ways or make new ones after several years it doesn't benefit society for you to hold a copyright that long when others can.

>>817592

>The only difference between usury and copyright is that in usury you don't do any work at all but expect profit, while in copyright you perform ONE work and then expect eternal, unceasing profit.

Technically, the service offered in the initial usurous loan could be considered one work.

>>817717

>People don't buy albums anymore thanks to piracy and streaming

People still buy albums, just a lot less because of piracy and streaming.

It's still a source of income, just not a major one.

>A lot of musicians make more money selling merch than selling albums

I know, still doesn't mean that albums don't bring in revenue.

>touring is extremely expensive and artists often lose money by touring - unless you're a superstar and you're selling out venues everywhere you go, you'll be lucky to break even.

Again, I know.

Thing is, touring makes for good marketing.

>Just selling records used to be good enough before piracy all but destroyed the record industry

Saying this is like a Roman saying "Warring used to bring in a lot of income but now with these peaceful times the economy is destroyed!"

Times changed, artists need to move with it or bust.

>>818020

>Times changed, artists need to move with it or bust.

>people don't want to pay you for your work, get used to it!

>>818139

That's just strawmanning.

People don't want to sink hundreds of euros into mediocre albums.

I'll give you €5, and buy some merch if it's available in my country.

Again, there are lots of other ways to make money, and popular artists still rake in the dough.

>>818194

>Now selling copies is wrong

If I went through all the effort of creating an exact replica of a cloth pattern, why would it be wrong to sell it?

>>818227

Because that's an easy way to break a law. Selling forgeries and fakes was a crime in the bible. It's the intent to profit off someone's work that makes it a sin, not making something because you can't afford it.

So what are you gonna do? Call the cops if I made a cloth pattern replica, give the replica away for free, or if I sell it to hurt your business? Copies aren't illegal, fraud is.

>>818268

Would it be a sin if someone mass produced the cloth pattern in a factory then gave them away to thousands of different people while standing across the road from the person selling the original pattern?

I'd argue no because you are not taking something away from them. You are merely taking a copy. It's like if someone builds a chair and you observe the design and build one yourself.

I think it can be a sin against justice though if you don't give the worthy workman his wages.

>>818318

No. If it's free, what crime did he commit? Are you gonna arrest someone for using a concept or an idea for free?

But as for the person who invented the wheel. I wonder how he felt when everyone else copied and made their own wheels. Madness I say.

>>816964

I understand that. It might be over-scrupulosity, but I was afraid of sinning by violating fair use and stopped reading fan comics or watching let's plays because I didn't want to sin by doing so or support sinners.

Does anyone here think fanfiction or other thngs of questionable fair use might be sinful because fair use isn't clear about their legality?

there is no way you convince me it's stealing because it just isnt.

you can tell me that it's illegal and we can talk about how just the law is and so on but it's clearly not stealing.

>>818564

It doesn't have to be stealing, the law causes no pain in 99% of circumstances, we can just follow it and keep it simple.

>>816845

Copyright violations are not theft. They are not tried under laws relating to theft. While laws against theft date back to antiquity, copyright first appeared in Britain in 1710 with the Statute of Anne. Which didn't consider it as theft, either. Indeed no one would consider copyright violation as an act of theft for a long time. Rather common good arguments were made in favor of copyright. Look at the justification in the US Constitution for copyright law:

>To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

Well that sort of justification was always spurious. Copyright does nothing to promote anything positive in society. Eventually as society became less concerned with the common good, and more with selfish interests, common good arguments for copyright were abandoned, and delusions of copying being "theft" were developed. These delusions don't withstand philosophical scrutiny, but there is a reason philosophy isn't taught in schools.

Theft is taking an object without the owner's permission without justification. But if you've bought something, say a book, you own it. You own the pages its made of, the ink that makes the letters, and the information the letters spell out. So it is your book now, and if you want to make copies of it and distribute them, well, it's your property, of course this is morally licit. Copyright law is itself a facilitator of theft, because it imposes fines against people for copying what culture they have bought and own. The fines are unjust, as a man in copying his property is not committing any sin against the moral law. All of Christendom throughout history never saw a problem with copying. Nor did any of the various heathenries in the past. Copyright is not a part of natural law, nor of Church Tradition. The sages and philosophers of the heathens saw no problem with copying, nor did the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Copyright was a dream of the iniquitous merchants of the degenerate British Empire. A way of making culture the slave of Mammon.

There is a natural order to human society and culture. Humans share stories, music, songs, jokes. When one has been passed onto you, it becomes yours, and you are free to pass it onto others. This is communication, an act of friendship and love. Copyright law turns this communication into a transaction. Like replacing marriage with prostitution. And all who support copyright are Mammon's whores.

There is no longer any culture that we can call ours. All traditions of folk music and folk tales are dead. People get culture from media they buy. But despite buying it, they never own it. JK Rowling has made millions of dollars from the money people spent buying her crummy Harry Potter books. Yet despite the masses having spent billions of dollars on these books, they don't own them. Indeed copyright shills will object to someone filesharing an ebook of Harry Potter by saying it's "not your book". It's "JK Rowling's book". This despite that you bought it. You bought it, but you do not own it, and so Harry Potter can never develop into an authentic folk tale, like say Robin Hood.

So copyright subsists in the unjust denial of property ownership to a man who has purchased said property. There is no harm committed to the common good by someone filesharing an ebook of a Harry Potter novel. The only harm committed is to JK Rowling's avarice, her burning greed to retain ownership of what she has sold, for the purposes of making her already rich self even richer. It's a narcissistic, individualist desire, with no concern for the common good.

>>818856

(continued)

Authors like Rowling aren't the only ones who get rich off the copyright system. It's media companies that make most of the wealth from the system. Book publishers, newspapers, film, radio, recording, and television industries. All of which are liberal, push godlessness and degeneracy on the masses. Any industry founded on a violation of the moral law, which copyright law is, will necessarily be antichristian in nature. The incentives to evil such systems produce are too powerful for fallen humanity to resist.

Defenders of copyright are defenders of Hollywood, of the RIAA, of journalists and pornographers. These are the necessary fruits the tree of copyright law produces. We see these fruits all around us, and their consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

Every Christian must oppose copyright law. One cannot serve both God and Mammon, and the love of money is the root of evil. To deny a man ownership of what he's bought, just so one can make more money for himself, is iniquitous. But to share culture with one another is an act of love, a reflection of divine Charity, as practiced in the Communion of Saints. It's communication, fulfills man's innate psychological need for a folk culture, that is part of the natural law, and so was present in every human society, until the advent of copyright stripped it away, lead to the misery and loneliness, the degeneracy and individualism of the current age.

As Catholics, we are not bound to observe any law that is contrary to the moral order and harms the common good. We are, however, bound to avoid participating in evil, to the extent we are able. Piracy is a moral good, undermining the antichristian systems of copyright and mass media. Giving money to media companies that promote iniquity, godlessness, and who use copyright law to steal, via courts and fines, money from men who, via piracy, have given or received media, to give money to such a company is participation in their sins, giving them funds that further enable them to wreak the evil that they practice.

Abolish copyright law to destroy the antichristian mass media, and liberate humanity from the shackles of Mammonism and loneliness that the system of copyright causes.

>>816845

The only reasonable argument I've heard about it is that we are required to render caesar's things to caesar, and that includes following the law inasumch as it doesn't conflict with our faith.

I came to the conclusion that it wasn't stealing but it could still be a sin because it is breaking the law. This leads me today to trying to figure out if a 1920s Latin book is in the public domain so I can download it. I then realized I'm basically engaging in Talmudic bean counting. Can this really be a sin when the law isn't really even enforced? Is jaywalking a sin?

I don't think it's a mortal sin personally though. I think it's probably venial, but deliberately and habitually venially sinning with no regards to it being a sin becomes mortal. So you should try and avoid it, at least that's my current estimation.

I hope the Church says something about piracy one day. With how slow the Church can be it'll probably be another ten ot twenty years before that happens.