Church Teaching on Intellectual Property

[totiusque]

Does anyone have any documents or official Church teaching regarding intellectual property rights, especially as it regards to downloading?  I've been googling like mad and can't seem to find any consensus on the Church's teaching on the matter, only opinions from both ends of the spectrum.  I've also looked at a lot of the legalities of the issue, but even that is contested.

Obviously "Thou Shalt Not Steal" is the first thing that pops up, but it seems to be a lot more complicated than that.  Obviously if one goes to a store or someone's house and takes a CD from them, you are taking away something that they purchased and had the right to possess.  Likewise, if you take a book that someone else has written and use it as your own (for profit, fame, or whatever), it is stealing.  These are tangible things that you deprive someone else from possessing.

But what of downloaded files?  Downloading a file does not deprive anyone of anything, unless one uses the logic that the artist is losing money, but there is no proof to this assertion.  On the contrary, one may download a file to see if the actual item is worth purchasing.

Obviously pirating files for profit is sinful, but is the act of downloading in itself a sinful act?  What say you, SD'ers?

[Ben]

On the contrary, one may download a file to see if the actual item is worth purchasing.

I often hear file sharers make this statement. Does anyone actually do this though? If you download a movie, for example, you will be far less likely to go out and buy it on DVD.

[Kaesekopf]

On the contrary, one may download a file to see if the actual item is worth purchasing.

I often hear file sharers make this statement. Does anyone actually do this though? If you download a movie, for example, you will be far less likely to go out and buy it on DVD.

There is some data to back that up.

Study finds pirates spend 30% more on music than non-sharers
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/10/17/study-finds-pirates-spend-30-more-on-music-than-non-sharers/

The American Assembly, a Columbia University affiliated public policy forum, has posted some surprising results about online music purchases by internet file-sharers. Their studies have found that US and German file-sharers spend around 30 per cent more on legitimate online music purchases than users who do not pirate music via the internet. The results are part of the American Assembly's 'Copy Culture Survey' that it intends to publish in the near future.

Despite amassing much larger music collections than users who do not use p2p file sharing networks, self-confessed p2p sharers appear to be purchasing more music legally than individuals who do not pirate content at all. It seems the ripping of CDs borrowed from friends and family accounts for almost as much music piracy as online file sharing anyway, which is an interesting discovery. This is something that has been rife since before online piracy music became a mainstream activity.

These findings directly contradict the Recording Industry Association of America's arguments that online music piracy costs the industry, and its artists, billions of dollars in lost revenue. They RIAA state that: "While downloading one song may not feel that serious of a crime, the accumulative impact of millions of songs downloaded illegally – and without any compensation to all the people who helped to create that song and bring it to fans – is devastating."

The fact of the matter is, people have always found ways to copy music for their own personal use. Whether it was by cassette tape, mini disc (remember those?), CD or MP3 files, but that doesn't mean people do not wish to pay for music legally. In the past it was easier to download albums illegally than it was to purchase them through online services. Now that services like iTunes, Amazon MP3 and Google Music have made the process of buying music legally even easier than sourcing it through p2p file sharing networks, users are buying more music through legitimate channels than ever before.

Larger music collections, whether acquired legally or illegally, arguably help to drum up more interest in artists and their music than smaller music collections. As friends share music collections between themselves, they introduce each other to new artists, which in turn raises the profile of the musicians and inevitably leads to more fans, music sales, ticket purchases and overall public exposure.

This is not the first study to find that music pirates tend to be the industry's most valuable customers, and it certainly won't be the last. To test this theory, have you ever acquired music via file sharing websites, then subsequently purchased music, tickets or merchandise legally because of it? And if so, would you say this is something that happens frequently?

[totiusque]

I often hear file sharers make this statement. Does anyone actually do this though? If you download a movie, for example, you will be far less likely to go out and buy it on DVD.

I would guess it's pretty common, especially given that most movie downloads do not include special features, commentaries, etc. and are generally of a lower quality than standard DVDs and Bluerays.  Not only that, but I'm sure collectors like to have the DVD case and insert as well if the DVD is worth keeping. 

Similarly for music, you get higher quality music with a CD (a necessity for audiophiles) along with the cover and insert.  For books, often the format comes across awkward in downloads, and many people (believe it or not) still like to have a hardcover in front of them and not stare at a device's screen for hours on end.

But whether or not people do this does not change the original question.  Are there any teachings from the Magisterium that address the issue of intellectual property to any degree that you know of?

[Ben]

No, I have no idea.

I still find it hard to believe that habitual file sharers are more likely to purchase stuff they can get for free. I wonder how they arrived at those findings.

[tmw89]

On topic:  http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=38.0

[totiusque]

On topic:  http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=38.0

Thanks, tmw!  This is what I was looking for (can't believe I didn't see this sooner), though it would be nice to see something from the Magisterium (or even from a trad priest). 

I did hear a priest once say "downloading videos/music off the internet is sinful" during a sermon on Confession, but he did not elaborate on why it is sinful, which is completely unhelpful.

[OCLittleFlower]

Personally, I don't think it matters much what forum something is in -- the creators and producers and the like should be paid.  Unless it's a collectable, no one really buys an album for the packaging.  It's about the music itself -- CD, LP, MP3, eight track -- who cares?  So pay for it.

[Someone1776]

Michael Moore has stated for him the line is crossed when someone attempts to make money off pirating intellectual property. I don't agree with Moore with much but it seems to me that it would be at that point there is no doubt theft involved.

[totiusque]

Let's take just one song for example.  I can listen to this song via numerous websites for free, yet if I download it, it is somehow morally wrong?  I understand that it would be better to support artists to keep them producing movies/music/books/etc., but I'm still not seeing it as a moral obligation.  It seems to be more a matter of charity vs. theft.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qscadsLdvV0[/yt]

http://www.vh1.com/video/weird-al-yankovic/108884/dont-download-this-song.jhtml#artist=508993
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Download-This-Song-Version/dp/B002T1AHFQ
http://www.mp3chief.com/music/don-t-download-this-song-weird-al-yankovic/
http://www.last.fm/music/%22Weird+Al%22+Yankovic/_/Don't+Download+This+Song

[totiusque]

Michael Moore has stated for him the line is crossed when someone attempts to make money off pirating intellectual property. I don't agree with Moore with much but it seems to me that it would be at that point there is no doubt theft involved.

Agreed, and I doubt most Catholics (or lawyers, for that matter) would dispute this point.  It's the downloading for personal use that raises the questions.  I'm actually surprised Michael Moore would say this.

[Someone1776]

Michael Moore has stated for him the line is crossed when someone attempts to make money off pirating intellectual property. I don't agree with Moore with much but it seems to me that it would be at that point there is no doubt theft involved.

Agreed, and I doubt most Catholics (or lawyers, for that matter) would dispute this point.  It's the downloading for personal use that raises the questions.  I'm actually surprised Michael Moore would say this.

I think the question becomes where are you getting the music from?

I think if we have hold that it's wrong for someone profit off someone else's intellectual property it becomes problematic to obtain media from people who do so. Thus, there is a big difference between getting some music from a friend who wants to share some tunes with you and downloading pirated music from a for-profit website based in China. 

I think the article Tmw89 posted makes a good point that given the complexity of copyright law it's hard to argue that most people have the understanding to knowingly commit mortal sin in this area, but at the same time I don't think this means we can do whatever we like when it comes to media. 

[OCLittleFlower]

Michael Moore has stated for him the line is crossed when someone attempts to make money off pirating intellectual property. I don't agree with Moore with much but it seems to me that it would be at that point there is no doubt theft involved.

Agreed, and I doubt most Catholics (or lawyers, for that matter) would dispute this point.  It's the downloading for personal use that raises the questions.  I'm actually surprised Michael Moore would say this.

You're surprised that someone who makes money off of movies doesn't like people bypassing the structure that pays him, while making a profit themselves?  Even Mooreon isn't stupid enough not to stick up for his own interests.

[totiusque]

You're surprised that someone who makes money off of movies doesn't like people bypassing the structure that pays him, while making a profit themselves?  Even Mooreon isn't stupid enough not to stick up for his own interests.

No, sorry, should've been more specific.  I'm surprised he's ONLY concerned about those making a profit off of his stuff, and NOT about the millions of other people who download his stuff for personal use.

[OCLittleFlower]

You're surprised that someone who makes money off of movies doesn't like people bypassing the structure that pays him, while making a profit themselves?  Even Mooreon isn't stupid enough not to stick up for his own interests.

No, sorry, should've been more specific.  I'm surprised he's ONLY concerned about those making a profit off of his stuff, and NOT about the millions of other people who download his stuff for personal use.

Ahhh okay.

I'd chock that up to him being a commie.   :tongue: