Downloading music from the internet...

[Eli_Cash]

"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."

Using someone else's idea is not stealing, as they still have the idea to use as well. And there is no such thing as stealing business, unless you are talking about fraud. What you call stealing business is actually competition, the cornerstone of a free market.

 

[.Ant]

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

Bingo.

Well, the point is, the Pharisees were not the government. They were just religious authorities, and Jesus exposed their religion as wrong.

If the government forbid you from picking grain on the Sabbath (and it was a serious law), then you should obey, according to the verse I quoted. If they forbid you from helping people on the Sabbath, you should disobey, for that directly contradicts God's law.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
"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.

Ah, so the ends justify the means? Breaking the law is good if you are trying to change the law? That would only be the case if, as I said before, that law directly contradicted God's law - eg. "You must not pray" or "Church is banned".

 

[Eli_Cash]

"Ah, so the ends justify the means? Breaking the law is good if you are trying to change the law? That would only be the case if, as I said before, that law directly contradicted God's law - eg. "You must not pray" or "Church is banned"."

It's called revolution. it's not a simple ends means debate, as in the case of revolutionary acts, one is acting on principles that are above the law. Christians typically recognize religion as outside the scope of the law, but it may be that there are other principles as well.

There is also the issue of inalienable rights. Most christians believe that we have an obligation to break certain laws, but in the absence of such an obligation we have no right to break the law. This is itself a questionable principle though. I believe that some states have laws regulating the sexual behaviour between married couples. No way I'm going to bring in the submit-to-authorities argument on something like that. I would consider such behavioural autonomy an inalienable right, meaning that a Christian has an obligation, not necessarily to disobey the law, but instead to not regard it at all.

Thus, in the situation of copyrights, the governement is completely outside of it's scope, and it's possible that christians could legitmately break these laws, and not be sinning. Governments have the power to regulate how property is distributed, and christians should not resist them in this, but they don't have the power to create property. Therefore any law based on the idea that an idea is property is not morally binding. However, the consequences MAY be. Meaning, if you are sued for copyright infringement, even though you haven't done anything wrong, you MAY still be morally required to carry out the judgement of the court.

 

[.Ant]

Yes, you've got a good point there.

I just don't believe copyrights (at least, not in the situations we're talking about - copying art) are one one of those situations. I think breaking copyrights can be harmful to people.

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Eli_Cash]

Well, that's fine. Just don't call it stealing. If someone personally believes it's wrong because it's against the law, I'm somewhat willing to compromise. But calling it stealing is a whole different matter. I'm not arguing that copying IS a situation where one is free to break, but some MAY see it that way.

 

[.Ant]

I still think it's stealing, but you are the first Christian I've found who genuinely believes it isn't, so I will be more careful in saying that in future.

The thing I've found with most Christians who pirate, is that when I really question them, they admit that it probably is stealing, but that it doesn't really matter.

Still, it's all rather theoretical, because either way it's illegal, and whether or not it should be illegal, whether or not it is stealing, I don't think it's right for Christians to do, if not just because it damages our witness.

 

[.Ant]

There's an interesting discussion on this topic at CNET News.com between Freenet inventor Ian Clarke and the RIAA's Matt Oppenheim: http://news.com.com/2010-1027_3-1023325.html?tag=fd_nc_1

 

[Eli_Cash]

Matt Oppenheim: An individual who illegally distributes music on a peer-to-peer network has less of an expectation of privacy than a bank robber wearing a mask when holding up a teller. And, just as the bank robber cannot be heard to complain when the guard pulls off his mask, an infringer on a P2P network cannot complain. The bank robber can at least claim that until his mask is pulled off, nobody knows who he is. In the case of an infringer on a P2P network, the (Internet service provider) knows exactly who the individual is and has typically told the user in advance in their terms of service that they will turn over information when they receive a subpoena.

By that logic, since I could be copying CD's for my friends, RIAA thugs should be allowed into my home to monitor my activities, since I'm not entitled to privacy that allows me to copy music.

 

[g0d15l0v3]

The only time I ever use 'napsters' and the sort is when I'm trying to find a new band or see if I like the music...then I typically go and buy the CD and rip it to Ogg for my listening pleasure...

 

[Jefferson]

Welcome to TOL g0d15l0v3.

 

[.Ant]

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
By that logic, since I could be copying CD's for my friends, RIAA thugs should be allowed into my home to monitor my activities, since I'm not entitled to privacy that allows me to copy music.

Sounds fair to me - if the law is right, you're stealing...

 

[Yorzhik]

Sounds fair to me - if the law is right, you're stealing...

At least you can say "if"

So. If the law is not right, then you would admit it isn't stealing.

 

[.Ant]

Yes. It would still, however, be against the law, and as Christians we should obey the law.

 

[Nineveh]

I am sorry if this has already been said...

Apple has struck the perfect harmonious balance, yet I don't see the music world beating a path to their door. I await the opportunity afforded Apple users.

I do not want to rip off my fave bands. In fact, the free music I got from the net (off the artist's official site) is not obtainable anywhere else. I have an opportunity on Ebay to finally get a hard copy, but even then the artist won't be getting the profit

We used to have a store here called "Karma". I used to be able to go in there and pick out any CD and listen to it free before I bought it. They even started a deal where I could "rent" the CD like a movie for 3 days with an option to buy. Unfortunatly, Best Buy moved in next door and they went out of business. So now, unlike any other industry, I have to make purchases "sight unseen". If I don't like it, I'm stuck with a dog, unless I want to exchange it for the same rotten CD.

So, not wanting to be a theif by using P2Ps, not being a Mac user (mea culpa), not having the money to throw away on "good bets", and not having Karma to test drive the new stuff, it seems I will be in limbo, or religated to the 10 second CDUniverse clips, should they have any posted.

So... C'MON IBM/MICROSOFT COMPATABLE! Strike a deal like Apple did!! I'm waiting!! : paypal password in hand:

Oh, just fyi, I have been reading where a couple of movie and music industry folks have been looking into using Napster and Kazzaa users to host their stuff. Perhaps they will get something worked out in the near future...

: squeezes eyes tightly shut... hope hope hope :

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I use the Apple service all the time - its really cool!

 

[Yorzhik]

Yes. It would still, however, be against the law, and as Christians we should obey the law

True, which is why I don't have copyrighted music on my computer. But if there is a bad law, we should work against it. And copyrights embedded in the law should be struck down because they are bad law. If one wants to have something like a copyright, they need to create an expressed contract like everyone else.

 

[.Ant]

Good to hear that. Many Christians break the law over copyrights.

I'm beginning to lean towards the idea that they are a bad law. Certainly, copyrights and patents are abused... so I agree, the law needs changing - don't ask me how.

 

[glassjester]

Vinyls

Vinyls

Ok, what if I already have the record album, but not the cd? Is it wrong to download the mp3's then, since I've paid for and currently legally own the album?

 

[Jefferson]

Ok, what if I already have the record album, but not the cd? Is it wrong to download the mp3's then, since I've paid for and currently legally own the album?

Yes. You paid for the album, not the cd. If you want the cd also, then pay for it. Should a video store give you a free copy of a DVD of a movie that you already have on VHS?

 

[Granite]

I win iTunes gift cards at work on a regular so, although I use the website, I haven't paid a dime for music in quite a while.

And Media Player sucks.