Is copying library music stealing?

Hello all :slight_smile:

My iTunes collection is always steadily growing with new music which I listen to very often. However, my mom recently told me that taking my music from the library and ripping them to my iTunes library is stealing. I feel really bad because I never thought of that before.

My dad, on the other hand, says that it is perfectly fine. He says that the library pays for the CDs and music with our taxes. He also made the point that most of the music I listen to are out of date (I’m an oldies kind of guy :thumbsup:) and that the CDs I get at the library aren’t really being sold nowadays.

I’m really confused as to what should I do, should I get rid of all library songs from my iTunes library? :frowning:

Thanks, and God Bless! :wave:

Copying songs from CDs at the library is the same as if you took a library book home and scanned it into your computer. Both are violations of copyright law.

Don’t do it. :o

The fact that tax dollars pay for library resources is irrelevant. The library furnishes patrons with resources to use on a temporary basis. You cannot simply keep library books or CDs indefinitely and rationalize it by saying your tax dollars paid for it anyway. Your tax dollards pay to allow you to use it and then return it.

You cannot assume that because a song is old that it is not available. Just because you can’t find the CDs at Best Buy doesn’t mean they are scarce or unavailable. Amazon and iTunes carry a lot of music, even oldies.

Sorry, I know that’s probably not the answer you were hoping for. :o

I agree. It is stealing. I used to do it myself, but not anymore.

God bless,

I think there’s a definite difference between copying and stealing. There are still some good arguments for not doing it, but the legal understanding of copyright is ridiculously overrated and restrictive. And especially if they’re old songs where the artists have retired and made their millions, what’s the dif? :smiley:
I think the system of copyright is very problematic and needs to be highly modified in order to realistically relate to the digital age :stuck_out_tongue:

I completely agree. Copyright law, as is, is not suited to the digital age, is restrictive to the point it doesn’t achieve it’s intended purpose under the Constitution (enriching society at large) and restricts the free practice of art, and needs to be completely reworked.

That said, under existing copyright law, copying music from CDs from the library is considered copyright infringement, since legally speaking every copy that you obtain must be purchased (except under specific limited circumstances where the music is offered for free by the artist/copyright holder—think Nine Inch Nails with “Ghosts I-IV” and Radiohead’s “In Rainbows” and their “pay what you want” scheme).

Nonetheless, copyright law is being abused and misused to the point it’s absurd, and really needs reform ASAP. Although, to be honest, I think the “copyright maximalists” are on the losing side of the debate.

They seem to be, but they’ve got most of the world’s governments and many non-internet industries, especially media industries, behind them. On the other hand, there is the internet giants like Google, Wikipedia, and Facebook, as well as probably most of the internet community against them. It’s the great cyberbattle of our time! :smiley: :stuck_out_tongue:

What most people don’t realize is that the biggest copyright hounds–Hollywood and the record labels–are on the way out. They’re slowly bleeding to death because the internet has so effectively replaced them. That’s why they scream so much about piracy: it’s not because it’s a problem (lots of independent research shows Hollywood’s piracy loss numbers are grossly exaggerated) but because it’s a convenient red herring. It allows them to elicit sympathy from people and supplies an easy excuse to push for more restrictive legislation (think SOPA and PIPA) that they hope will keep them alive while crippling the internet.

There is good reason in my mind to believe that copyright law will eventually become much less restrictive than it is now, mainly because the giant copyright firms are going to die off before getting what they truly want.

Jimmy Wales from Wikipedia said that Hollywood is irrelevant. And you know what? He’s right. And this is the best thing that could ever happen to the arts community and consumers at large.

I agree. Copyright was a scheme that was suppose to encourage creativity and the arts, but it has largely become something do to the opposite (sniffle creativity, and the sister scheme of patents has made inventing something new something only the rich and well-lawyered can dabble in. Notice how Apple, Microsoft, Google, Motorola, Samsung, and others are basically all suing each other constantly over vague “inventions”).

To the OP, I don’t have an answer to the question of whether it’s stealing (stealing is wrong because it deprives another of the use of their property, copying is if we had a Star Trek style Replicator), but I know that it does deprive an artist of their fair wages for their work (which is counted among the sins that cry out to Heaven).

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit