The morality of piracy

Thefinalepic

Thefinalepic

Administrator
Trad Catholic
Heritage
Heirloom
I have not seen any statements made by the Church about piracy (obtaining media online via torrenting or other means) and its status as a sin.

One side of the argument surrounding the morality of piracy is such: when understanding how digital files work, one does not deprive a creator of said media by downloading it. Even with streaming services today, one does not "own" the media that is being transmitted - hence the argument that "If buying is not owning, then piracy is not theft."

The other side of the coin is that theft is a sin, and that disobeying the governing body of one's jurisdiction is a sin. The obvious grey area is that jurisdictions vary completely on this question.

This is a thread about the morality of piracy as it pertains to Christianity, not as it pertains to the world. Discuss.
 
Thefinalepic said:
The other side of the coin is that theft is a sin, and that disobeying the governing body of one's jurisdiction is a sin. The obvious grey area is that jurisdictions vary completely on this question.
Click to expand...
Not to derail but this reminds me of a very similar concept of the idea that one should be "obedient to his rulers" as suggested by St. Paul in his letter(s). This usually get shortened to "obey unless it makes you sin" or go against God. The problem with this position is two-fold: it's very vague and it's at a minimum, naive. I can think of a lot of things where modern governments are literally plotting against their own people, with the monetary system and "immigration" being the best examples, that don't fit into the "go against God" thing but absolutely makes them illegitimate governments and enemies in fact, of the people. Since it turns out that corporations are tied close to modern government systems (the definition of fascism), one can easily apply this to corporations, and thus your question as well.

A quick reasoning by extreme would be this one: Is paying 50% taxes to "Caesar" on your work moral? Especially when you are aware of what they do with it? Let's say you didn't know what they did with it. Is 95% tax/confiscation something you should obey? The arguers of this take are thus shown to be fairly ridiculous in the view that "technically, their confiscation doesn't make you sin."
 
Thefinalepic said:
I have not seen any statements made by the Church about piracy (obtaining media online via torrenting or other means) and its status as a sin.

This is a thread about the morality of piracy as it pertains to Christianity, not as it pertains to the world. Discuss.
Click to expand...
Interesting thread idea, thanks for staring it!
I have thought/wondered a lot about this as well.


Also with eBooks, because what is the difference between reading a book in a library, or finding it online for free? Sure, the library bought a copy or 3 but literally hundreds of people can read the same book and no more money goes to the author that I'm aware of. Along with the rise of social media, exposure is the name of the game, having a larger personal brand would help an author to earn more and maximize their reach over the long term. If no one knows about your "product" how can they be a fan and buy it?

In any case, if I find a lot of value in a certain authors work (especially if I found it for free online), I will tell friends about them and follow their social media/YouTube page, leave comments, buy a small item from their online store, etc... If a book is really great and something to revisit, a lot of times I will buy a physical copy or 2 just so I can go back and re-read every few years.
 
I think everybody understands the model of paying for digital content which is then accessed after payment. In a world where this model is widespread, taking action to access the content by some means of going around the pay wall can reasonably be considered stealing.

I know that everybody's doing it, and that if you can get a copy of the context that's free of the paywall restrictions, it can be shared easily. However, knowing that it was created with the intent to sell it means that it is stealing to get it for free.
 
I will generally "pirate" stuff at first and if I like it, I will then buy a hard copy which a prefer to have as digital-only content can be censored or canceled. It's not that different from going to the music store, back in the old days, and listening to records before deciding to buy them, or skimming through a book in the bookstore. And with the amount of cultural slop released these days, buying anything blind is theft committed against me.
I also appreciate when publishers put effort to make hard copies attractive - extra content, cover art, etc.
 
Thomas More said:
I think everybody understands the model of paying for digital content which is then accessed after payment. In a world where this model is widespread, taking action to access the content by some means of going around the pay wall can reasonably be considered stealing.

I know that everybody's doing it, and that if you can get a copy of the context that's free of the paywall restrictions, it can be shared easily. However, knowing that it was created with the intent to sell it means that it is stealing to get it for free.
Click to expand...
Right, but for example if a song is available for free on youtube, what is the difference between downloading that song to listen to it on my computer, vs. going to youtube to listen to it? If one understands network protocols, we are essentially doing the same thing, one is accessible on a local filesystem, one is accessible on a browser's filesystem. In addition, with subscription services, I don't OWN anything when I pay money. I get the privilege of listening to tracks or watching movies, but this privilege can be revoked at any time.

I am a small time author - I welcome people pirating my book. Why? Because maybe that person needs the content right now and cannot afford $7, maybe tomorrow will be different for them. Or, maybe that one person is worth far more to me than any monetary value.
 
A lot of this is a "moving forward" benefit of past works that paid artists, and stifling of new artists due to the greater difficulty of $ investment or monetary reward. Thing is, for most artistic endeavors, they existed pretty much for all of humanity as personal creations that were timeless and in fact, didn't result in monetary rewards for the author or artist. I think, again, what we have here is just comparing the reality of the modern day vs the very recent and artificial past. Because this one group of people were lucky to be filthy rich or wealthy due to being born in a huge boom and tech time (people that know my ideas know this is part of my thesis, but it's all clear to me), there is this idea that somehow that's what arts and entertainment should get you. But historically there is no real basis for it.
 
I remember my gateway into warez and piracy was Adobe Photoshop. It was so prohibitively expensive, even well over a decade ago, that, as a youth with no income, I ended up pirating it, then discovering IRC distribution channels and torrents.

I'm not as invested in music, movies, and TV as I once was, and when I do feel like watching something, it tends to be pre-Awokening content, usually a $3 rental on Amazon, Apple, or some other service.
 
At least in Poland, downloading of music and movies was legalized, if done solely for private enjoyment of family and close friends, making it available for download is still a crime- say in a p2p scenario when you're seeding the files. The gist of the matter was that most of the pirated material would have never been bought anyway, so the creators don't lose any serious money, no transaction would be executed even if people couldn't illegally download anything.

The Vatican kept a revered musical piece locked up in a safe, and wouldn't make the notes publicly available. When Mozart heard it performed as a kid, he later recreated it at home note for note, and the Church relented.

Roosh said he deleted his entire Red Hot Chili Peppers playlist as a Christian. I thought why be so zealous, then recently I found out one of them, the Greek guy had paid for his girlfriend's abortion when they were both 21, so now when anything by them comes on, I change the station when I'm in my car.
 
Last edited:
Thomas More said:
I think everybody understands the model of paying for digital content which is then accessed after payment. In a world where this model is widespread, taking action to access the content by some means of going around the pay wall can reasonably be considered stealing.

I know that everybody's doing it, and that if you can get a copy of the context that's free of the paywall restrictions, it can be shared easily. However, knowing that it was created with the intent to sell it means that it is stealing to get it for free.
Click to expand...
I get what you are saying but at the same time is it really stealing if you don't virtually climb over their paywall and take said item? Yes, you are benefitting from someone else making something available for free that normally costs but did you actually steal from them?

A huge difference between piracy on the open seas and what we've been discussing is that looting physical goods is different than making a copy of something, as in the latter an original item is still there. On the one hand, if pirates from the Spanish Main had a way to 'copy' a ship's contents, they would essentially be diluting/devaluing the original items because the scarcity is now reduced (assuming the new items are taken to the original market as well).

Also, before the printing press wasn't that basically keeping knowledge behind a 'paywall' that the commoner couldn't afford? As technology has progressed, the price for knowledge is approaching zero (minus over inflated college tuition of course) and pretty much every topic now has multiple experts on it who will basically give everything away for free online.
 
Northern Pilgrim said:
I get what you are saying but at the same time is it really stealing if you don't virtually climb over their paywall and take said item? Yes, you are benefitting from someone else making something available for free that normally costs but did you actually steal from them?

A huge difference between piracy on the open seas and what we've been discussing is that looting physical goods is different than making a copy of something, as in the latter an original item is still there. On the one hand, if pirates from the Spanish Main had a way to 'copy' a ship's contents, they would essentially be diluting/devaluing the original items because the scarcity is now reduced (assuming the new items are taken to the original market as well).

Also, before the printing press wasn't that basically keeping knowledge behind a 'paywall' that the commoner couldn't afford? As technology has progressed, the price for knowledge is approaching zero (minus over inflated college tuition of course) and pretty much every topic now has multiple experts on it who will basically give everything away for free online.
Click to expand...
I would say that yes it is stealing. If you get a "free" file shared copy of something that is has an active copyright, then you are stealing from the owners of the copyright. That's what copyright means.

I know that people used to record albums onto cassette tapes all the time, and people borrow books or check them out of the library, but I think this is different somehow. Files can be shared on a mass scale, which is totally different than recording a cassette tape or borrowing a single physical book and returning it.

Likewise, I know that some people say "information wants to be free", but this is just a rationalization and a rallying cry for file sharing platforms to trade in stolen data. Everybody does it, and it seems like a small sin, but when I consider the matter, I have to conclude it is stealing.
 
Thomas More said:
I know that people used to record albums onto cassette tapes all the time, and people borrow books or check them out of the library, but I think this is different somehow. Files can be shared on a mass scale, which is totally different than recording a cassette tape or borrowing a single physical book and returning it.
Click to expand...
It is quite literally the exact same phenomenon. The fact is there is false scarcity put into place in regard to digital media, when it is not scarce at all. Ontop of this, the ability to actually own something nowadays has been severely diminished by these subscription companies to the point that the only alternative is to pirate media to have it for tomorrow.
 
Thomas More said:
I would say that yes it is stealing. If you get a "free" file shared copy of something that is has an active copyright, then you are stealing from the owners of the copyright. That's what copyright means.

I know that people used to record albums onto cassette tapes all the time, and people borrow books or check them out of the library, but I think this is different somehow. Files can be shared on a mass scale, which is totally different than recording a cassette tape or borrowing a single physical book and returning it.

Likewise, I know that some people say "information wants to be free", but this is just a rationalization and a rallying cry for file sharing platforms to trade in stolen data. Everybody does it, and it seems like a small sin, but when I consider the matter, I have to conclude it is stealing.
Click to expand...
I can definitely see where you are coming from, especially if there is an active copyright.

As time goes on and technology progresses, I expect more authors to go direct to consumers, rather than going through publishers and such. Nowadays getting an idea out first online via one of the top platforms seems more important than an actual copyright.
 
Please note that this dovetails (I just told a member in PM) to the topic of "digital scarcity" which is what the invention/discovery of BTC is, and why it's so important for the information age.
 
Blade Runner said:
Please note that this dovetails (I just told a member in PM) to the topic of "digital scarcity" which is what the invention/discovery of BTC is, and why it's so important for the information age.
Click to expand...
Eventually block chain (or some sort of open source digital ledger, idk too much about the technical side of it all) will probably HAVE to be used to authenticate everything from social media posts (ensuring non-AI or doctored) to copyrighted materials, digital records, etc...
 
This is a much needed thread. I've thought about this often and still don't have any firm convictions. Before I started to pray again and repented, I had a huge video, music, software and ebook collection that I accumulated over the years. I feel uneasy about it, so I deleted most of my collection, but still haven't fully released my grasp.

I've tried to find ways of paying restitution to those I believed I owed it to. As an example, I donated to the charities of an author and a well known jazz musician ( a substantial amount to musician's charity as I have most of his albums).
It's a pity that musicians and other copyright owners don't have ways to pay them directly, some sort of honesty box. I dislike giving Amazon money, knowing that that the artist only gets a meagre percentage.

As for books, I still struggle with this, especially as I mainly read obscure Christian books that cost a fortune to obtain honestly. So I will usually do a search on Anna's Archive and get them from there. Because it's for my spiritual edification, I give myself a pass. I wish I could say I'm OK with this, but I'm still not.

As an argument, look let's say I have the choice to buy a second hand book on ebay, say from the person who bought it new, I read it and sell it on myself and this process happens repeatedly, yet the content creator doesn't see one extra penny. The cost of the product is simply being socialised. But it isn't a dishonest transaction in my mind and I don't feel uneasy. But if I instead decide to search for the book on Anna's Archive and download it for free, unless it's out of print or very old, I still feel I'm stealing, but it's virtually the same process as happens in the second hand marketplace, albeit greatly magnified.

Just some thoughts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top