Downloading music from the internet...

[.Ant]

I actually think individual property ownership is real. Both material AND intellectua

I actually think individual property ownership is real. Both material AND intellectua

Originally posted by Yorzhik
If you think copyrights are expressed agreements, then how on earth do you define an implied agreement?

I was using them interchangeably (sorry to be confusing and inaccurate).

Originally posted by Eli_Cash

Originally posted by .Ant
Installation of a software program, or purchase of an item, is an expressed agreement, by law. Even a single use of information can be an expressed agreement, through licenses (not copyrights).

No its not. It's implied, because the law does not require that I sign anything or give any expression of my consent. Laws cannot change the definitions of expressed and implied, no matter how they are worded.

When you click "I Agree" on the licence agreement when installing a software program, you are giving your consent.

This part of the discussion is a bit off-track, because we're talking about property, not contracts. You don't have to sign anything to prevent you from stealing property, nor intellectual property under current law.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Thus you are arguing that legislation defines morality.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Actually its obvious that you are saying that. You just don't want to take your reasoning far enough to approve of these ideologies, but that is the natural conclusion. You said yourself that property is created by law. If that's the case, then stealing doesn't exist outside of law.

You're right, it doesn't. Taking it to it's conclusion, the Bible speaks about God's law:

Originally written by Paul (Romans 4:15)
And where there is no law there is no transgression.

Although Paul was talking about God's law - hence what I am saying is that God defines our morality, because his law overrides the law of any government.

With regards to copyright law, I do not think it goes against any biblical principle. In fact, if anything, I think the bible upholds my view that "music piracy is stealing".

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Because as soon as you create that art, it no longer belongs to you. You may own the canvas that its on, but the act of expressing art is the act of placing it in the public domain. People who try to take something that is naturally common, and own it are stealing, in the same sense that communists are stealing when they take something that naturally belongs to you, property, and distribute it as if it were common.

We're arguing in circles now. Your argument does not help to distinguish WHY intellectual property is invalid. (I could use the same argument against material property: "The act of creating a material good is the act of placing it in the public domain. People who try to take something that is naturally common, and own it are stealing, in the same sense that communists are stealing when they take something that naturally belongs to you, property, and distribute it as if it were common.")

Originally posted by Eli_Cash (my emphasis)
In a "non ownership" culture someone still owns property. Its just that all the property is owned by one inividual or group who controls how it may be used.

Individual property ownership is not a concept in all cultures.

Sorry, I should've made that clearer. My bad.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
No it shows that some cultures are based on lies, like the idea that things are not owned. Somebody owns everything, because somebody dictates how every piece of property is used. Some cultures don't like to admit this, but there is no way around it. But I'm glad you admit that you are a cultural relativist. Now take it to the next step and admit it was alright to be a Nazi in WW2 era germany.

You're right. I was using the cultural relativism argument as an argument from a worldly perspective, and also to show that intellectual property is just as valid as material property.

What I really believe is that all men are under God's law. What is your basis?

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Somebody always has a final say-so about any physical peice of property. This is a natural fact. You cannot get around it.

Well, thereoretically, there could be a total democracy, where everyone who wants to votes on the issue...

 

[Eli_Cash]

.Ant:
"When you click "I Agree" on the licence agreement when installing a software program, you are giving your consent."

Indeed. But not all software requires you to do that.

"This part of the discussion is a bit off-track, because we're talking about property, not contracts. You don't have to sign anything to prevent you from stealing property, nor intellectual property under current law."

But copying isn't stealing, so why don't you start being honest here. You try to slip these little statements in because you can't justify your position. That's dishonest.

Eli_Cash:
Thus you are arguing that legislation defines morality.

Eli_Cash:
Actually its obvious that you are saying that. You just don't want to take your reasoning far enough to approve of these ideologies, but that is the natural conclusion. You said yourself that property is created by law. If that's the case, then stealing doesn't exist outside of law.

.Ant:
You're right, it doesn't. Taking it to it's conclusion, the Bible speaks about God's law:
quote:Originally written by Paul (Romans 4:15)
And where there is no law there is no transgression.

"Although Paul was talking about God's law - hence what I am saying is that God defines our morality, because his law overrides the law of any government."

That's what I'm talking about as well. God's law is evident in nature. A human law that contradicts nature is an unjust law.

"With regards to copyright law, I do not think it goes against any biblical principle. In fact, if anything, I think the bible upholds my view that "music piracy is stealing"."

No it doesn't. Now you're lying, or are ignorant. If the latter, you are still being dishonest, because you evidently know of nothing the bible actually says that supports your view. You cannot produce one shred of evidence from the scripture, in fact the testimony of scripture is against you. See the links I posted on the Bob Enyart "Christian Copy-wrongers" thread.

Eli_Cash:
Because as soon as you create that art, it no longer belongs to you. You may own the canvas that its on, but the act of expressing art is the act of placing it in the public domain. People who try to take something that is naturally common, and own it are stealing, in the same sense that communists are stealing when they take something that naturally belongs to you, property, and distribute it as if it were common.

.Ant:
"We're arguing in circles now. "

No. YOU have been arguing in a circle for this whole discussion.

"Your argument does not help to distinguish WHY intellectual property is invalid."

Of course it does. I have shown exactly why ideas are not analogous to physical property. You have yet to show why this distinction is meaningless. Because you can't. Property laws exist out of necessity, to justly deal with a limited supply. There is no such necessity when it comes to ideas.

"(I could use the same argument against material property: "The act of creating a material good is the act of placing it in the public domain. People who try to take something that is naturally common, and own it are stealing, in the same sense that communists are stealing when they take something that naturally belongs to you, property, and distribute it as if it were common.")"

And that would be a completely fallacious argument, since physical property lacks the one characteristic necessary to make it belong to the public domain. Namely, it is not unlimited in terms of reproduction.

Eli_Cash:
In a "non ownership" culture someone still owns property. Its just that all the property is owned by one inividual or group who controls how it may be used.

.Ant
"Individual property ownership is not a concept in all cultures."

Of couse not, because some cultures are run by liars. Just like Monotheism is not a concept in all cultures.

"Sorry, I should've made that clearer. My bad."

I never misunderstood you.

Eli_Cash:
No it shows that some cultures are based on lies, like the idea that things are not owned. Somebody owns everything, because somebody dictates how every piece of property is used. Some cultures don't like to admit this, but there is no way around it. But I'm glad you admit that you are a cultural relativist. Now take it to the next step and admit it was alright to be a Nazi in WW2 era germany.

.Ant
"You're right. I was using the cultural relativism argument as an argument from a worldly perspective, and also to show that intellectual property is just as valid as material property."

And it failed, unless you're willing to concede that Naziism is just as valid as democracy.

"What I really believe is that all men are under God's law."

Evidently not, or else you wouldn't claim property is defined by mans law

"What is your basis?"

God's law. What's yours?

Eli_Cash:
Somebody always has a final say-so about any physical peice of property. This is a natural fact. You cannot get around it.

.Ant:
"Well, thereoretically, there could be a total democracy, where everyone who wants to votes on the issue..."

What you are describing there is still a form of communism, which assumes the lie that property is either naturally common, or that it is unlimited in supply and bases law on these fallacious principles. Copyright law is based on the fallacious priciple that ideas are naturally owned and that they are a limited resource. Both systems are unjust.

 

[Yorzhik]

When you click "I Agree" on the licence agreement when installing a software program, you are giving your consent.

This is a good topic to discuss. The only leg copyright advocates have to stand on is contract law, not property law, because contracts are natural and ideas as property are not.

It is true that you are completing a contract with the supplier when you click "I agree". The problem with this kind of contract is that it is *extremely* weak. The power of the copyright contract is bad law that is universally known to be unjust if it is ever enforced. If this kind of contract were ever used in a system where individuals were free to transact (barring natural law) - it would never be utilized.

 

[.Ant]

Hrrrm

Hrrrm

Originally posted by Eli_Cash

Originally posted by .Ant
This part of the discussion is a bit off-track, because we're talking about property, not contracts. You don't have to sign anything to prevent you from stealing property, nor intellectual property under current law.

But copying isn't stealing, so why don't you start being honest here. You try to slip these little statements in because you can't justify your position. That's dishonest.

:nono: :sigh: I actually believe copying *is* stealing. Hence our argument...

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
That's what I'm talking about as well. God's law is evident in nature. A human law that contradicts nature is an unjust law.

And as I said, I don't think copyright law contradicts nature.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash

Originally posted by .Ant
With regards to copyright law, I do not think it goes against any biblical principle. In fact, if anything, I think the bible upholds my view that "music piracy is stealing".

No it doesn't. Now you're lying, or are ignorant. If the latter, you are still being dishonest, because you evidently know of nothing the bible actually says that supports your view. You cannot produce one shred of evidence from the scripture, in fact the testimony of scripture is against you. See the links I posted on the Bob Enyart "Christian Copy-wrongers" thread.

Note that Bob Enyart was speaking out against piracy.

What do you say to Toasty's remark in that same thread?

I read the articles. The points made about greedy corporations are valid, but just because people are greedy doesn't mean copyright law is wrong. I think it is fair that if I make something, I have the legal right to do what I like with it. Whether what I do with it is godly is another matter. Same as with property - is property law wrong because some people don't share the things they should?

Originally from article http://www.philthegeek.freeserve.co.uk/copyright.html
For christians a love for God and a desire to express this love, and reach out to others are the primary reasons for writing poetry, music, books, painting inspirational pictures, dancing and expressing ourselves in any other way in which God has gifted us. Please don't restrict or hamper other peoples' enjoyment of your work, and the subsequent spreading of the Gospel for the sake of a little extra monetary income.

I agree with this. The point that both articles make is that Christians should share, not that copyrights should be abolished.

Originally from article http://www.philthegeek.freeserve.co.uk/copyright.html
Whether amateur or professional ask yourself this question. If there were no copyright laws would I have no incentive to create?

The incentive would still be there, but I wouldn't be able to make a living from my artistry.

Originally from article http://www.philthegeek.freeserve.co.uk/copyright.html
Charles Wesley did not need copyright protection, nor did Shakespeare, Homer or Isaac Newton.

The only (secular) artists in that lot, Shakespeare and Homer, were bards, who were paid every time they played / recited to people.

Copyrights are only needed due to modern technology, such as printing presses and computers. Before these, artistry couldn't be easily duplicated.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash

Originally posted by .Ant
We're arguing in circles now.

No. YOU have been arguing in a circle for this whole discussion.

Takes two to tango.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
I have shown exactly why ideas are not analogous to physical property. You have yet to show why this distinction is meaningless. Because you can't. Property laws exist out of necessity, to justly deal with a limited supply. There is no such necessity when it comes to ideas.

There is. It's the necessity of enabling people to make money from their artwork, and stopping people from passing off other people's work as their own.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash

And that would be a completely fallacious argument, since physical property lacks the one characteristic necessary to make it belong to the public domain. Namely, it is not unlimited in terms of reproduction.

So you're saying that all published information belongs to the public domain?

Originally posted by Eli_Cash

Originally posted by .Ant
What I really believe is that all men are under God's law.

Evidently not, or else you wouldn't claim property is defined by mans law

Originally posted by Eli_Cash [my ...]
What you are describing there is still a form of communism, which assumes the lie that property is... naturally common

Originally from article http://www.workbench.net/~jack/copyright.html
Have you ever heard a Christian performer say "the Lord gave me this song?" Well, if that's true, then why did that performer probably apply for a copyright on it before the ink was dry on the paper? Did God give the performer that song as a means of praise and worship to Him, or so that the performer could profit by it? It would seem that if the Lord freely gives a song or a sermon to someone to share with God's people, that person has no business putting a price on it!

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Of couse not, because some cultures are run by liars. Just like Monotheism is not a concept in all cultures.

That's not fair. I think the idea that land is not owned is more godly than our western thinking on the matter. The Bible teaches that we don't really own anything, we are just stewards. Every good thing we have is from God, not just songs and ideas.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash

Originally posted by .Ant
What is your basis?

God's law. What's yours?

God's law. That's a good start then, we might get somewhere.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
This is a good topic to discuss. The only leg copyright advocates have to stand on is contract law, not property law, because contracts are natural and ideas as property are not.

I am not arguing that ALL examples of copyright law are good and natural. I am arguing specifically about non-material artwork (re. the title of this thread) - ie. writing, drawing and music.

Sure, I think that the idea of intellectual property can be taken too far. But inherently unnatural, and shouldn't exist? No. I still don't see why copyrights are an inherently unnatural idea.

Perhaps this quote helps clarify the intent of copyrights:

Originally from article http://www.workbench.net/~jack/copyright.html
It still should be clear that the intent was to grant a brief advantage to inventors and authors, that specific public purposes had to be served by intellectual property laws, and finally that property is a misnomer. Intellectual property is owned by the public and in essence leased to authors and inventors. A temporary economic advantage for authors and inventors is created because a hopefully more valuable benefit will accrue to the public, and ultimately the lease expires and all rights return to the general public.

Economic advantage, while not inherently evil and certainly a part of the engine of commerce, is a reward to authors and inventors for contributing to "the progress of science and the useful arts."

 

[Eli_Cash]

.Ant:
This part of the discussion is a bit off-track, because we're talking about property, not contracts. You don't have to sign anything to prevent you from stealing property, nor intellectual property under current law.

Eli_Cash:
But copying isn't stealing, so why don't you start being honest here. You try to slip these little statements in because you can't justify your position. That's dishonest.

.Ant:
"I actually believe copying *is* stealing. Hence our argument..."

And you have no justification for that opinion. Every argument you have put forth has been circular. Thus, not only is your position unjustified, but you have no right to hold it. This is because you are judging people as thieves without warrant, you hypocrite.

Eli_Cash:
That's what I'm talking about as well. God's law is evident in nature. A human law that contradicts nature is an unjust law.

.Ant:
"And as I said, I don't think copyright law contradicts nature."

And you haven't justified that position. You just keep repeating it. Repeating a lie doesn't make it true, it just makes you a liar.

.Ant:
With regards to copyright law, I do not think it goes against any biblical principle. In fact, if anything, I think the bible upholds my view that "music piracy is stealing".

Eli_Cash
No it doesn't. Now you're lying, or are ignorant. If the latter, you are still being dishonest, because you evidently know of nothing the bible actually says that supports your view. You cannot produce one shred of evidence from the scripture, in fact the testimony of scripture is against you. See the links I posted on the Bob Enyart "Christian Copy-wrongers" thread.

.Ant:
"Note that Bob Enyart was speaking out against piracy."

You're point?

.Ant:
"What do you say to Toasty's remark in that same thread?"

The same thing I say to your lies. He has done nothing more to justify his position than you have. Both of you are simply jumping up and down screaming "copying is stealing! copying is stealing!"

.Ant:
I read the articles. The points made about greedy corporations are valid, but just because people are greedy doesn't mean copyright law is wrong. I think it is fair that if I make something, I have the legal right to do what I like with it. Whether what I do with it is godly is another matter. Same as with property - is property law wrong because some people don't share the things they should?

But you can't copyright something and live according to christian principles at the same time.

quote:Originally from article http://www.philthegeek.freeserve.co.uk/copyright.html
Whether amateur or professional ask yourself this question. If there were no copyright laws would I have no incentive to create?

.Ant:
"The incentive would still be there, but I wouldn't be able to make a living from my artistry."

And you have no natural right to. The concept of the professional idea creator is a new one. Historically artists have made money by performance, not by ownership of ideas. But this gets somewhat beside the point, as it doesn't matter whether the artist can make money off of his art, it matters whether the laws are right. They aren't.

quote:Originally from article http://www.philthegeek.freeserve.co.uk/copyright.html
Charles Wesley did not need copyright protection, nor did Shakespeare, Homer or Isaac Newton.
The only (secular) artists in that lot, Shakespeare and Homer, were bards, who were paid every time they played / recited to people.

.Ant:
"Copyrights are only needed due to modern technology, such as printing presses and computers. Before these, artistry couldn't be easily duplicated."

Charles Wesley was contemporary with printing presses, as was, I believe Shakespeare. The point was they recieved most of their money through patronage and public performance, not from leaching off of distribution.

.Ant
We're arguing in circles now.

Eli_Cash:
No. YOU have been arguing in a circle for this whole discussion.

.Ant:
"Takes two to tango."

Not really. None of my arguments have been circular. All of yours have.

Eli_Cash:
I have shown exactly why ideas are not analogous to physical property. You have yet to show why this distinction is meaningless. Because you can't. Property laws exist out of necessity, to justly deal with a limited supply. There is no such necessity when it comes to ideas.

.Ant:
"There is. It's the necessity of enabling people to make money from their artwork, and stopping people from passing off other people's work as their own."

There is no such necessity. The world and art have gotten along just fine for thousands of years before copyrights existed. But what you are arguing for is the same as saying monopolies should be defended because of the "necessity" that businessmen stay in busness. Competition "steals" profits.

And as to passing of work as your own, that is a different subject. It's called plagiarism.


Eli_Cash:
And that would be a completely fallacious argument, since physical property lacks the one characteristic necessary to make it belong to the public domain. Namely, it is not unlimited in terms of reproduction.

.Ant:
"So you're saying that all published information belongs to the public domain?"

Yes. Because it IS in the public domain. That's what it means to publish.

.Ant:
What I really believe is that all men are under God's law.

Eli_Cash:
Evidently not, or else you wouldn't claim property is defined by mans law

Eli_Cash:
What you are describing there is still a form of communism, which assumes the lie that property is... naturally common

quote:Originally from article http://www.workbench.net/~jack/copyright.html
Have you ever heard a Christian performer say "the Lord gave me this song?" Well, if that's true, then why did that performer probably apply for a copyright on it before the ink was dry on the paper? Did God give the performer that song as a means of praise and worship to Him, or so that the performer could profit by it? It would seem that if the Lord freely gives a song or a sermon to someone to share with God's people, that person has no business putting a price on it!

Eli_Cash:
Of couse not, because some cultures are run by liars. Just like Monotheism is not a concept in all cultures.

That's not fair. I think the idea that land is not owned is more godly than our western thinking on the matter. The Bible teaches that we don't really own anything, we are just stewards. Every good thing we have is from God, not just songs and ideas.

No, the bible upholds the idea of ownership. Just because everything is ultimately owned by God doesn't mean that sub-ownership is not godly. If I am a steward of a particualr piece of property, then you are not. This is the same as ownership. Ideas given by God are for the edification of the church by common distribution.

.Ant
What is your basis?

Eli_Cash:
God's law. What's yours?

.Ant:
"God's law. That's a good start then, we might get somewhere."

Not likely. We haven't gotten anywhere with that line of reasoning so far, because you really don't care about God's law, because you don't even care about the truth that is evident in nature. You're a liar and won't admit truth no matter how it is presented to you.

The concept of intellectual property is foreign to the scripture. That is evidence enough that it is not of God. Then there are truths that can clearly be perceived from nature which prove that copyright laws are unjust.

 

[Yorzhik]

Sure, I think that the idea of intellectual property can be taken too far. But inherently unnatural, and shouldn't exist? No. I still don't see why copyrights are an inherently unnatural idea.

Because when I buy something, naturally I think it is mine and I can do as I please with it.

Perhaps this quote helps clarify the intent of copyrights.

Originally from article http://www.workbench.net/~jack/copyright.html
It still should be clear that the intent was to grant a brief advantage to inventors and authors, that specific public purposes had to be served by intellectual property laws, and finally that property is a misnomer. Intellectual property is owned by the public and in essence leased to authors and inventors. A temporary economic advantage for authors and inventors is created because a hopefully more valuable benefit will accrue to the public, and ultimately the lease expires and all rights return to the general public.

Economic advantage, while not inherently evil and certainly a part of the engine of commerce, is a reward to authors and inventors for contributing to "the progress of science and the useful arts."

The writer of the quote is wrong. Putting a time limit on the monopoly enforced by the government will always be an arbitrary time limit. If a law has arbitrary components, then it should be suspect as a bad law.

 

[.Ant]

Originally posted by Yorzhik
Because when I buy something, naturally I think it is mine and I can do as I please with it.

When you buy music, or a book, you aren't buying the actual music, or the actual writing. Otherwise you could resell it to your heart's content, and claim it as your own. Surely a very deceptive thing to do, but illegal because of copyrights.

What you are actually buying is the right to use it. You do not own it - the author does.

To me, this seems to be upholding a biblical principle - that you should not rip off other people's work, or pass it off as your own.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
The writer of the quote is wrong. Putting a time limit on the monopoly enforced by the government will always be an arbitrary time limit. If a law has arbitrary components, then it should be suspect as a bad law.

Almost all legal punishments are arbitrary. So are they all bad laws?

 

[Yorzhik]

When you buy music, or a book, you aren't buying the actual music, or the actual writing.

So your saying a=b - a!=b at the same time: You are buying music - you aren't buying music.

The adjective "actual" doesn't change anything.

Otherwise you could resell it to your heart's content,

Of course. Don't you normally think you can resell something you own, that you paid for?

and claim it as your own.

You've just extended owning to plagiarism. It does no follow.

Surely a very deceptive thing to do, but illegal because of copyrights.

No. Plagiarism is not illegal because of copyrights.

What you are actually buying is the right to use it. You do not own it - the author does.

Yes, this must be explained, because naturally people think when they buy something they actually own it.

To me, this seems to be upholding a biblical principle - that you should not rip off other people's work, or pass it off as your own.

When you put it that way, we agree. But one cannot "rip off" (steal) ideas, and passing off someone else's work as your own is not an issue of copyright.

 

[Eli_Cash]

"Almost all legal punishments are arbitrary. So are they all bad laws?"

The ones that are arbitray are bad laws. For instance, putting a person in jail for murder, bad law. Such a person should be put to death. Eye for an eye is not arbitrary. It is the basis of Biblical law. But it is evident that you don't care about that.

 

[.Ant]

Arbitrary *punishment* =/= bad law

Arbitrary *punishment* =/= bad law

Originally posted by Eli_Cash

Originally posted by .Ant
Almost all legal punishments are arbitrary. So are they all bad laws?

The ones that are arbitray are bad laws. For instance, putting a person in jail for murder, bad law. Such a person should be put to death. Eye for an eye is not arbitrary. It is the basis of Biblical law. But it is evident that you don't care about that.

Would you say the same to Jesus? He told people not to follow "an eye for an eye".

The Torah was and is for Israel, not for secular governments. So yes, I am against the death penalty in secular governments.

In any case, the arbitraryness of a law's punishment doesn't make the actual law bad - you think the penalty for murder is wrong, not that the actual law against murder is wrong. So this has no bearing on the question of whether copying and redistributing people's artwork is stealing.

 

[.Ant]

EOD

EOD

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
.Ant:
This part of the discussion is a bit off-track, because we're talking about property, not contracts. You don't have to sign anything to prevent you from stealing property, nor intellectual property under current law.

Eli_Cash:
But copying isn't stealing, so why don't you start being honest here. You try to slip these little statements in because you can't justify your position. That's dishonest.

.Ant:
"I actually believe copying *is* stealing. Hence our argument..."

And you have no justification for that opinion. Every argument you have put forth has been circular. Thus, not only is your position unjustified, but you have no right to hold it. This is because you are judging people as thieves without warrant, you hypocrite.

How can you call me a hypocrite when I genuinely believe in what I say? I actually believe that copyrights are there for a good reason.

You think that because I have picked the "wrong" side, all of my arguments are circular. You have decided things like "copyrights are against ownership) and will not budge on them. You don't think any of my arguments have any merit whatsoever, so obviously it is useless for me to continue debating as you are not listening to what I say. Because I disagree with you, I "don't care about God's law" and am a blind liar and hypocrite.

I am disappointed to conclude that this debate has degenerated to the point it is not worth continuing.

As my last word, as one Christian brother to another, I ask you if you obey this command:

Romans 13:1-5
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

Can you give a biblical reference showing how obeying copyright law directly opposes the law of God? In other words, do you know a verse which shows that obeying copyright law is a sin?

 

[Eli_Cash]

"Would you say the same to Jesus? He told people not to follow "an eye for an eye"."

He told the Jews not to follow an eye for an eye individually, as they were to forgive. Paul said in Romans that the secular government was the instrument of God's vengance.

"The Torah was and is for Israel, not for secular governments. So yes, I am against the death penalty in secular governments."

Again, read romans. Youre so wrong here that it's getting ridiculous. You think record companies should be able to sue individuals for their life savings, yet you don't think a murderer should be killed. What blatant hypocrisy. What will you say to Jesus in answer to your obvious double standard?

But also your position on the death penalty is contradicted by the old testament. The death penalty was a law given to Noah, before there were any Jews.

"In any case, the arbitraryness of a law's punishment doesn't make the actual law bad - you think the penalty for murder is wrong, not that the actual law against murder is wrong. So this has no bearing on the question of whether copying and redistributing people's artwork is stealing."

Actually it does. The damages in a murder case are quantifiable, hence eye for an eye. The damages in a copyright violation are not quantifiable. A reasonable law has a rationally defined punishment associated with it. An arbitrary law doesn't So a non-death penalty for a murder is a bad law. Muder is not just illegal, it has definite punishments associated. The only rational punishment, however, is the death penalty.

 

[Eli_Cash]

"How can you call me a hypocrite when I genuinely believe in what I say? I actually believe that copyrights are there for a good reason."

Even hitler didn't think what he was doing was evil. I believe paul said that he knew nothing against himself. Do you think the pharisees believed they were hypocites? Jesus labelled them that anyway.

"You think that because I have picked the "wrong" side, all of my arguments are circular. "

No, I know that because all your arguments are circular, you have picked the wrong side. Its called logic. Try it some time.

"You have decided things like "copyrights are against ownership) and will not budge on them. "

Because you haven't provided a coherent, non circular reason why I should. There is a huge gap between the characteristics of physical property and ideas. And you can't explain why that gap is irrelevant. This is what your argument hinges on.

"You don't think any of my arguments have any merit whatsoever, so obviously it is useless for me to continue debating as you are not listening to what I say. "

Now your just lying. I am listening to what you say. I have systematically analyzed every single argument that you put forward, and all of them are fatally flawed.

Because I disagree with you, I "don't care about God's law" and am a blind liar and hypocrite.

No, your a liar and a hypocrite because your reasoning contradicts God's word, and it is circular.

"I am disappointed to conclude that this debate has degenerated to the point it is not worth continuing."

It did that a long time ago when you kept dodging the obvious logic of my and yorszhicks arguments. And now your trying to flee a battle that you can't win.

"As my last word, as one Christian brother to another, I ask you if you obey this command:"

Oh, so your a Christian now? A christian that falsly accuses his brothers of stealing? That sounds more like the devil to me.

I find it interesting that the command you cite is one that justifies the death penalty.

"Can you give a biblical reference showing how obeying copyright law directly opposes the law of God? In other words, do you know a verse which shows that obeying copyright law is a sin?"

It would be a sin if you obeyed copyright laws applied to the bible. And people have done this. If an idea can be owned, any idea can potentially be owned. But the issue wasn't obediance to copyright laws in the first place. It was whether copying is stealing. It isn't.

 

[.Ant]

Since I have a disagreement with you (or perhaps, as Paul put it, I have a weak conscience), my Christian witness is weakened? I don't think so.

Okay then, for the sake of argument it isn't. Should you obey copyrights (also ignoring the bible, for the sake of argument)?

 

[Eli_Cash]

"Since I have a disagreement with you (or perhaps, as Paul put it, I have a weak conscience), my Christian witness is weakened? I don't think so."

I don't know what you're referring to here, but indeed your witness is weakened, since you are unjustly attacking Christians who copy instead of paying for information. It's one thing to say that you won't copy, it's entirely another to condemn those who do, and then justify it by lying and saying they are thieves.

But furthermore, as a Christian you represent a set of morals. If you declare something immoral that reason declares is not, and that God doesn't even speak about, then yes you have seriously weakened your Christian witness.

"Okay then, for the sake of argument it isn't. Should you obey copyrights (also ignoring the bible, for the sake of argument)?"

Should the disciples have obeyed the pharisees when they condemned them for picking grain on the sabbath? What prevented them from following their rules?

 

[.Ant]

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
It's one thing to say that you won't copy, it's entirely another to condemn those who do, and then justify it by lying and saying they are thieves.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
But furthermore, as a Christian you represent a set of morals. If you declare something immoral that reason declares is not, and that God doesn't even speak about, then yes you have seriously weakened your Christian witness.

The verse I posted previously speaks for itself.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
"Okay then, for the sake of argument it isn't. Should you obey copyrights (also ignoring the bible, for the sake of argument)?"

Should the disciples have obeyed the pharisees when they condemned them for picking grain on the sabbath? What prevented them from following their rules?

It was almost impossible to keep all the rules of the pharisees, and in any case, the pharisees applied this rule in a manner directly contradictory to the actual law of God.

Are there any cases where God requires you to disobey your government? I mean, real cases about laws in effect today.

 

[Eli_Cash]

"It was almost impossible to keep all the rules of the pharisees, and in any case, the pharisees applied this rule in a manner directly contradictory to the actual law of God."

No they didn't. Nowhere in the law of God does it say that it is right to pick grain on the sabbath. No where does God's express law say this.

"Are there any cases where God requires you to disobey your government? I mean, real cases about laws in effect today."

Copyright law may be such a case, or it may not. But that is beside the point. The relevant points are, copying is not stealing, copying is not in itself immoral, copying should not be illegal.

 

[PureX]

Copyrights protect the design of a product, not the products themselves. If I buy a certain kind of chair, it is mine to do with as I wish. I can destroy it, use it, or even sell it. But if I begin to build chairs just like it and sell them, I am in effect stealing the design from the designer, and I am using it to steal his business as well. Same goes for music. I can buy a CD, and it will be mine to do with as I wish. I can even resell it for a profit if I like. But when I begin copying that CD and giving it away, or selling it, I am stealing the author's musical "design", and then using it to steal his business as well.

 

[.Ant]

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
"It was almost impossible to keep all the rules of the pharisees, and in any case, the pharisees applied this rule in a manner directly contradictory to the actual law of God."

No they didn't. Nowhere in the law of God does it say that it is right to pick grain on the sabbath. No where does God's express law say this.

Nor does the law of God say that it is right to walk on the Sabbath. Or breathe

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
"Are there any cases where God requires you to disobey your government? I mean, real cases about laws in effect today."

Copyright law may be such a case, or it may not. But that is beside the point. The relevant points are, copying is not stealing, copying is not in itself immoral, copying should not be illegal.

Okay, for the sake of argument, copying should not be illegal. However, to disobey the government, when you are not required to disobey it because of God's law, is immoral.

 

[Eli_Cash]

"Nor does the law of God say that it is right to walk on the Sabbath. Or breathe "

Bingo.

"Okay, for the sake of argument, copying should not be illegal. However, to disobey the government, when you are not required to disobey it because of God's law, is immoral."

Not necessarily. It can be a moral act, if for instance you intend to effect a change. at least most people would consider it so. Bottom line though, you're in no position to judge this, unless you can give a clear line of reasoning for the morality or immorality of it.