Back in the modern-media day, you could buy VHS copies of movies, each of which included the warning—accompanied by the sobering FBI seal—that unauthorized duplication or distribution of copyrighted films carried a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
Violators would rationalize that rich Hollywood corporations could afford the “minor loss,” that copying a movie wasn’t the same as stealing an actual VHS copy that had to be physically produced and replaced, and perhaps also that they couldn’t afford the personal purchase and yet deserved to benefit from it.
Today, people—including young Catholics who’ve grown up in a digital age—make similar arguments for duplicating and distributing movies and other copyrighted materials, including Catholic books, instead of making even a single purchase of these copyrighted works. They contend, for example, that stealing a sheep physically deprives a farmer of an actual thing and requires him to expend money to replace that sheep, whereas digitally duplicating a desired Catholic book does not diminish a publisher’s or author’s physical inventory, and generating new digital copies of the same book is simple and virtually free—pun intended.
They overlook, or willfully disregard, that such piracy negatively impacts publishers and authors in making a living, including recouping their investments to write, publish, and market their books. (Such piracy is distinguished from limited, fair-use excerpting of a book and also from cases in which people violate laws without malice—e.g., copying a particular translation of the Code of Code Law, and then promptly desisting when confronted with their infringement.)
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) addresses this general issue under the Seventh Commandment, “Thou Shall Not Steal” (Exod. 20:15):
The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others (CCC 2408, emphasis original).
The right to private property, acquired or received in a just way, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise (CCC 2403, emphasis original).
Digital Piracy Is a Modern Form of Stealing
The unauthorized duplication of a copyrighted Catholic book, for example, is clearly a form of theft, and the need to read a particular book and access its related information is not as urgent as one’s need to eat. I will return later to the issue of the universal destination of goods regarding books and movies, including how there are varied—and legitimately free or low-cost—ways to access desired information in a digital age that makes such information, or a legitimate distillation of such, widely available to people the world over.
The Church also recognizes the role of governments to safeguard private property rights:
The responsibility of the state. Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly” (CCC 2431, emphasis original).
In 1998, the U.S. Congress enacted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to protect the private property rights of publishers, authors, and other entrepreneurs. That same year, Congress also passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, which extended copyright protections for an author and his heirs from fifty to seventy years after the author’s death. In related court rulings—specifically, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes (2001) and the U.S. Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003)—the courts have upheld these laws.
One Catholic scholar has lamented the courts’ rulings as not consistent with the Church’s teaching on the universal destination of goods. For example, she cites Pope John Paul II’s words in 1999 on debt relief, in which the pope conveys that limitations regarding private property rights apply to intellectual property as well:
The Catholic Church looks at the situation with great concern, not because it has any concrete technical model of development to offer, but because it has a moral vision of what the good of individuals and of the human family demands. It has consistently taught that there is a “social mortgage” on all private property, a concept that today must also be applied to “intellectual property” and to “knowledge.” The law of profit alone cannot be applied to that which is essential for the fight against hunger, disease, and poverty.
Moral Alternatives to Digital Piracy Exist
The clear context of the Holy Father’s message is intellectual property related to alleviating “hunger, disease, and poverty.” In addition, given our digital age, there are many ways for people to access information about books, movies, etc., without engaging in digital theft. For example, regarding a Catholic book, we can access a paper copy via the traditional free means of the local library, and there are often more expeditious digital means available today—e.g., through Hoopla. In addition, we can get the gist of a book by reading free and substantive reviews of it on Goodreads and Amazon, or viewing related YouTube interviews (with associated transcripts). There are other means as well, including a related essay or podcast on Catholic.com.
Also, to better serve the poor, particularly in third-world countries, the common good is better served when authors and publishers make free and generous licensing exceptions, rather than through government mandates, whether legislative or judicial.
However, these morally legitimate alternatives often don’t satisfy copyright violators, who, reflective of the self-justifying selfishness of our modern age, basically say, “I want it. I want it now. I want it on my terms, and I deserve it.” The “virtue of selfishness,” though, as the philosopher Ayn Rand could tell us, has its downside when someone exercises it as our expense. In addition, as Jesus counsels, “whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets” (Matt. 7:12). Also, as St. Paul cautions,
Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life (Gal. 6:7-8).
Lest there be any misunderstanding in my reference to the apostle Paul, I’m not asserting that any unauthorized digital piracy is grave wrongdoing. Still, when someone willfully pirates a movie or a copyrighted Catholic book, he is committing wrongdoing and should thus repent and make a firm purpose of amendment to avoid that sin going forward.
Finally, some critics counter that copyright laws are a secular invention of recent centuries, not a biblically mandated provision. They miss that the Bible provides timeless moral principles that apply to modern realities not specifically addressed by Scripture. For example, “thou shall not kill” (Exod. 20:13) applies to the killing of embryonic human persons who are destroyed in seeking medical advances through embryonic stem cell research, which is otherwise wrong because it objectifies such persons. “Thou shall not steal” is also timeless, and anti-piracy laws are simply a modern and just application of that principle.