I wrote this post to solve problems that seem very complex. The point is this: downloading music, movies, or other files that are protected by network copyright, is that a sin? Let’s begin, first of all, to ascertain whether it is evil: there are those who say that if someone has music without paying, it is, but on the other hand, there are also people who say that spreading it is a crime and not downloading it. Then, as the pastor told me, that is not always a crime = sin or vice versa. There was no pastor I had visited who answered me fully about it, so I didn’t know whether to admit it or not.
The problem is especially complex because it’s not always clear whether the file you want to download is protected by copyright. Sometimes the same authors put their works online (music, videos, etc.) to be downloaded for free to make themselves known and respected, perhaps in an effort to put other works on the market. This situation is common among south Indian musicians who deliberately provide broad access to Tamil songs downloads with the aim of making them more popular.
However, often, this is effectively copyrighted material, which can sometimes be downloaded legally under certain conditions by paying for rights recognized by law and established by the market, but quite often illegally viewed and downloaded, or without respecting the rights of authors and producers.
Uncertainty about the fact that the distribution and enjoyment of material covered by copyright can be configured as a crime and about criminal entities which may be caused by the fact that norms that protect rights depend largely on national law while the use of networks is well known as a transnational phenomenon.
The debate about the legal regulation of network communications shows the need for a balance between copyright protection, or protection of artist rights, and the defense of freedom of expression and information. Opinions about achievement differ and may reflect the very diverse interests of the subjects involved.
It is true that it must be recognized that the Internet has changed and radically changed the way we communicate and conduct culture, organize work, study and research. We face anthropological changes, also in continuous evolution, which challenge us to determine more and more precise legal instruments.
The complexity of the legal framework is inevitably also reflected in the moral assessment of the behavior and habits adopted in the use of the Internet, and answers to questions raised by readers do not always become easy. The highly interactive qualities that increasingly characterize network enjoyment must certainly prevent us from offering harsh responses that will ultimately represent copyright infringement on almost all access to Web content.
The negative judgment about the lack of respect for copyright can be better understood if reference is made to one of the rules of morality, the golden rule, which says “don’t do to others what you don’t want them to do to you.” Let’s put ourselves, therefore, in the shoes of an author or a producer who has invested time and money to make work (musical, cinematographic, etc.)