File-Swapping: A Christian Perspective

[brother vinny]

File-Swapping: A Christian Perspective



By Vinny



My name is Vinny, and I used to swap files.

I can’t remember the first time I did it—the first time I downloaded over the Internet for free something for which honest consumers paid. I can’t remember how I justified it to myself at first, either, although I’ve probably had a hundred little justifications since then, to the point where I was numbed to the guilt of what I was doing.

This thread is aimed at viewing file-swapping from a Christian perspective. I don’t expect those trapped in the system of the world to see things the way Christians do. What’s sobering is the number of Christians who have adopted the world’s view on this issue (by no means is this issue the only one, but other issues fall outside the purview of this thread). According to an article in Christianity Today, “Born-again Christians (77 percent) [are] just as likely as non-believers (81 percent)” to engage in music piracy, judging by results of a six-month study. Polls indicate that only 1 in 13 Christian teens view piracy as “morally wrong.” [SOURCE] (http://www.christianitytoday.com/music/news/2005/gmafightsback.html)

Henceforth in this thread I shall be exploring whether or not the downloading of music is stealing (it is my view that it is), some of the consequences of file-Swapping, and answers to some of the justifications used for file-Swapping.



Is It Really Stealing?



File-swapping is, in its essence, the transfer of a series of zeroes and ones from one computer to another. On the face of it, it sounds pretty innocuous. Networks were created for precisely this purpose. The reason swapping a song over a computer network is different than, say, sharing a public-use HTML file has to do with intellectual property.

Intellectual property is something of a novelty, especially when considering the nearly 2000 years since the Christian canon was closed. It wasn’t until notes could be written to sheet music that particular sequences of notes could be said to be one’s intellectual property, and it wasn’t until the phonograph was invented in 1877 that individual performances could fall into the category.

Some people have called the ability to charge money for music artificial inflation, but is it really? Take the example of a hammer. Anyone could fashion a hammer of sorts by locating a sufficiently-hard rock and having at a nail with it. But the rock is unwieldy, so someone has the idea to chisel the hammer into a more wieldy form. Since he has put work into the formation of a better hammer, he now has the right, if he so chooses, to sell that hammer to others who wish to drive nails. Then one of those users discover the hammer is not hard enough to perform all desired tasks, and so goes about constructing a hammer made of metal, and so on and so on.

The hammer analogy has an intellectual parallel. Any of us using a computer is using some sort of operating system—which is basically just a long series of zeroes and ones telling the computer how to manage other series of zeroes and ones. Some operating systems are free to use, while the manufacturers of others charge money for the license to use their software. There’s nothing wrong with either of these methods, nor is there anything morally preferable about either method. The manufacturer of the former may find it a jagged pill to swallow that he has little revenue to put into the research and development of the OS’s next version, while the latter may find that the fact that he charges for licensing makes him unpopular in some circles and not find as wide a distribution for his software. Stealing the OS from the latter is stealing the results of hundreds (maybe thousands) of man hours it took to put that operating system together, and is no different than stealing the chiseled hammer.

Now, think of what you get when you buy a music CD. On said CD is a digital representation of a performance, along with all the production, rented studio time, repeated takes, dubbing, mixing, and so forth that that implies. Mariah Carey might have taken 30 tries to hit that high note in “Someday,” for instance. When you buy a CD, though, you’re not buying the performance itself, but a license to play said performance.

So, with this chain of logic, we’ve gone from stealing a physical tool that works to stealing a virtual tool that works to. . . what? Stealing something virtual that isn’t a tool? Music may not be technically a tool but it does serve to enrich our lives and, in the case of the Christian, our worship. Can we really glorify God singing along to a copy of Rich Mullins’ “Awesome God” when it was gotten by illegal means? We are called to obey the laws of the land, so long as those laws do not counter God’s laws. The law of this land honors the rights of artists, writers, and companies to the songs they produce, and we as Christians should respect that.



Consequences of File-Swapping



Apart from legal consequences from organizations like the RIAA, there are negative and undesirable effects which stem from illegal file swapping, which impact not only the record company, but up-and-coming artists as well. Then there’s the spiritual impact stealing music has upon the person doing the stealing, which I’ll cover shortly.

I’m not going to dwell on the record companies losses, other than to say it’s no more right to steal from a company than from an individual. An unfortunate side effect will be, I believe (and this is admittedly theory), a growing unwillingness among record companies to invest in up-and-coming innovators, preferring to place their bets on the relative safety of the tried and true. Can you imagine a world in investors funded New Kids on the Block but never took a chance on Nirvana? I believe that, as sales decline, record companies will gravitate toward producing what’s been known to sell, less likely to experiment.

The most disastrous impact may be that of the sin upon the sinner. I’ve already mentioned the spiritual callous that forms, desensitizing one to the guilt of what is clearly an immoral act. In my experience, there’s also a sense of pride that sneaks in, and in chat rooms where the subject came up I had been giving a winking approval to my own wrongdoing. Add to this an attitude of entitlement, that demon that comes alongside and whispers those most treacherous of words, “You deserve more. You deserve better.” Looking back, I can see how this had hampered my walk with God, even though I no longer gave thought to the wrongness of my actions (until, that is, I got into a discussion of the ethics of the matter with co-workers last week).

I have since deleted all music from the My Music folder of my profile on my home computer, as well as on the PC I use at work.



Justifications of File-Swapping



The simplest line of reasoning on justifying one’s actions is that, if it requires diverse and myriad justifications to make the action seem right, it’s probably wrong from the beginning. I fought within myself to justify my collection of illegally-gotten music, and came to the conclusion that there really was no justification for it.

These are some of the justifications I struggled with. I’d be interested to hear others.

It’s too expensive! But do you really need it? Haven’t we been given everything we need to live a life of holiness through our intimate knowledge of Jesus Christ? Most songs are available individually through online merchants for around 89 cents per song. One of my co-workers purchases about 3 or 4 songs a week, around 3 bucks’ worth, so it isn’t all that bad, and it’s better than hindrances that sin brings to the Christian walk.

It’s no different from taping the stuff off the radio. Our laws are a trifle schizophrenic when it comes to this. Taping a song off the radio is legal, where taping it from the album is not. Quality is diminished on the radio, and one often gets DJ’s talking over the intro or end of the song. But both of these issues are eliminated with satellite radio, which is also perfectly legal to record.

The way I look at it, and this is admittedly more of a gray area, if you tape/burn a copy from the radio, even satellite radio, more power to you. The law has inexplicably left you a loophole, so use it. There’s limitations for the person who goes this route—you’re limited as to whatever songs the radio station wishes to play at a given time, and (especially in the case with broadcast radio) you’re often limited to the radio edit of a given tune. (Side note: Did you know there’s a radio edit of the Newsboys’ “Reality,” that edits out the line about “shoveling elephant dung”?) Also, you’re usually limited to singles from a given album, so if there’s a particular track you want that was never made a radio single, you’re probably out of luck.

The radio loophole, I fear, would quickly become a noose for me.

Much of the stuff I download is rare and out of press. This is a tough one to swallow, but the morality of the issue isn’t changed: unless the recording has lapsed into public domain, the copyright laws still stand and one shouldn’t download it. Wait a while. Chances are, unless the artist was horribly bad, the record label will re-release the rarity in some form. (What I want to know is what happens when both the record company and the music group are defunct, such as the late R.E.X. Records and one of its signed bands, Love Coma?)

Everyone else is doing it! C’mon, Christian, do you really want to go there?



Conclusion



The entire Mosaic Law was summed up by Jesus Christ as, briefly, “Love God, love your neighbor.” Illegal file-swapping dishonors both. It dishonors God by clearly flouting His Word in the matter of obeying earthly authority, and it dishonors one’s neighbor by taking away from him—be it the musician, the writer, or even the record company executive—that which society says is his.

[sc_q_jayce]

*snip*
Bravo! I, too, take your stance, though I had also originally done as you had done in my high school years. I was convicted of this during my first year in college and destroyed my (not so massive) collection of songs I had accumulated... about 1GB of songs all from a 56k modem!

Some of my friends use a loophole around this by saying that there's no DMCA act or equivalent in the Chinese market (Figures, they would look at C-Pop or J-Pop). I'm not sure what to say about that yet. Any takers? In the end, I would simply say the same thing about what you said (beyond just the law but the moral integrity of the believer).

Lastly, though I don't do it anymore, I am still constantly tempted by emulators, programs, whatever it may be. Which reminds me... of just recently when I wanted to try to get a copy of Windows XP... heh.

Advice: When you're in college, go buy student discount versions of all your favorite software! It's totally worth it!

Still, I am much more glad to not have these things on my computer.

[Trout]

Nice work, BV. I completely agree, file swapping is stealing.

What about my dilemma:

As a guitar player I often visit sites where I can find the music to popular songs, print it and learn to play the songs. Many of the artists I enjoy playing sell sheet music, they don't give it away.

Am I sinning?

[studyhound]

Hmm a overly simplistic answer to a complex issue.

[sc_q_jayce]

Hmm a overly simplistic answer to a complex issue.
So what's your take on it? Inquiring minds want to know; perhaps there is something we've missed?

[TuckEverlasting]

Nice work, BV. I completely agree, file swapping is stealing.

What about my dilemma:

As a guitar player I often visit sites where I can find the music to popular songs, print it and learn to play the songs. Many of the artists I enjoy playing sell sheet music, they don't give it away.

Am I sinning?

I do that too, :trout:. But how far does this go? If I come over to your house and show you how to play a song, is that wrong? If I write down the music to a song, bring it over to your house, and leave it for you, is that wrong? If I type out the music to a song on my computer and email it to you, is that wrong? If I type out the music to a song on my computer, post it on the internet, and you download it, is that wrong?

I'd say no in all four cases, unless there's some silly law I don't know about.

[Mark_S]

It’s no different from taping the stuff off the radio. Our laws are a trifle schizophrenic when it comes to this. Taping a song off the radio is legal, where taping it from the album is not. Quality is diminished on the radio, and one often gets DJ’s talking over the intro or end of the song. But both of these issues are eliminated with satellite radio, which is also perfectly legal to record.



First of all. Very nice post. I do agree with you. Its funny that you bring this up because my wife and I recently had this exact same discussion. I usually load my mp3 player with a recording off of one of my Satellite TV music stations. My wife found that odd because we both are against piracy. My line of reasoning was that its fine and legal to tape a TV program for individual use with a DVR, why not music with an MP3?

If you have a link from your research about this, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks,

Mark

[technomage]

As a guitar player I often visit sites where I can find the music to popular songs, print it and learn to play the songs. Many of the artists I enjoy playing sell sheet music, they don't give it away.

Technically speaking, while lyrics and melodies can be (and are) copyrighted, chord sequences cannot. If you're copying full-fledged tablature notation, this is legally problematic (though I've not yet heard of a court case)--if you're just getting chord sequences, this is not a legal offense.

But you didn't ask what the law stated--you asked about sin. What does your conscience say?

For my part, my audio files are licensed for free distribution: if you sell my audio files and make a profit, then you're in trouble with me, but if you give them away for free, then I'm perfectly happy. (I'm even happier if people give reviews on the music, but I'm just vain that way. :hehe:)

[technomage]

It’s no different from taping the stuff off the radio. Our laws are a trifle schizophrenic when it comes to this. Taping a song off the radio is legal, where taping it from the album is not.

In the United States, this is not the case: if you own the album, you are allowed to tape a back-up copy for your own use. In Britain, however, you are not allowed to do so--if you want a copy for the house and another for the car, you must buy two copies. (I'm not sure of the law in Canada, but I would not be surprised if they followed the British model.)

[brother vinny]

First of all. Very nice post. I do agree with you. Its funny that you bring this up because my wife and I recently had this exact same discussion. I usually load my mp3 player with a recording off of one of my Satellite TV music stations. My wife found that odd because we both are against piracy. My line of reasoning was that its fine and legal to tape a TV program for individual use with a DVR, why not music with an MP3?

If you have a link from your research about this, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks,

Mark

Off hand, I don't have a link. The whole idea of it being okay to record something off of TV/radio stems from the fact that a signal is being broadcast or beamed into your home, rather than having to explore outside the confines of your home to find the desired media, as the Internet lets you do.

I'll try to get some more info on it; if anyone else beats me to it, so much the better. :teeth:

To the guitar people:

I simply don't know. My rule of thumb would probably be different from yours. I shall endeavor not to give even the appearance of evil in this, so unless the song is public domain, I would see about purchasing the sheet music.

(I have bought one book of sheet music in my life. It was Prince and the Revolution's Parade: Music from the Motion Picture Under the Cherry Moon. I was 16 at the time, and to this day I can't get an E9sus4 to sound like it should at the beginning of "Kiss.")

Hmm a overly simplistic answer to a complex issue.

I don't see the issue as any more complex as I described it, and I don't see my solution as any simpler than it needs to be.

[TuckEverlasting]

In Britain, however, you are not allowed to do so--if you want a copy for the house and another for the car, you must buy two copies.

Are you freakin' kiddin' me? So if I'm British and I own a CD, I'm not allowed to rip the CD onto my laptop so I can listen to it without having the CD in the drive - even though I have no intention of ever file-sharing it or anything? Who comes up with these st00pid laws? :argh:

(I'm not sure of the law in Canada, but I would not be surprised if they followed the British model.)

Yeah, we're lame like that. :sigh2:

[brother vinny]

In the United States, this is not the case: if you own the album, you are allowed to tape a back-up copy for your own use.

Sorry about that-- I forgot that exception to the rule. You are correct.

However, if you go on to sell that album (in the US), do you retain the rights to keep the copy? I would think not, since with the album you're selling the license to the performance, basically.

[Aletheia]

In the United States, this is not the case: if you own the album, you are allowed to tape a back-up copy for your own use. In Britain, however, you are not allowed to do so--if you want a copy for the house and another for the car, you must buy two copies. (I'm not sure of the law in Canada, but I would not be surprised if they followed the British model.)

So if I lived in Britain, it would be against the law for me to make a road trip compilation CD to play in the car? That's just plain stupid!:doh:

[Mark_S]

I do that too, :trout:. But how far does this go? If I come over to your house and show you how to play a song, is that wrong? If I write down the music to a song, bring it over to your house, and leave it for you, is that wrong? If I type out the music to a song on my computer and email it to you, is that wrong? If I type out the music to a song on my computer, post it on the internet, and you download it, is that wrong?

I'd say no in all four cases, unless there's some silly law I don't know about.

Without even hitting Google, I'll go out on a limb and say: No, Yes, Yes, Yes.

If I go to your house and read you that latest Harry Potter book, is that wrong? If I write it on a napkin and leave it for you is that wrong. If I type it out and post it it in cirismetology is that wrong. (and will Minn report it?)

[TuckEverlasting]

Without even hitting Google, I'll go out on a limb and say: No, Yes, Yes, Yes.

If I go to your house and read you that latest Harry Potter book, is that wrong? If I write it on a napkin and leave it for you is that wrong. If I type it out and post it it in cirismetology is that wrong. (and will Minn report it?)
You're prolly right.

It's all so lame. :sigh2:

[brother vinny]

You're prolly right.

It's all so lame. :sigh2:

It's all just more reason why we should all convert to the Church of Christ and make melodies in our hearts, not on our instruments.

Okay. I'm just kidding.

[$cirisme]

I've never been one to steal music, and anymore most of the best software is freeto begin with, so meh.

[brother vinny]

I've never been one to steal music, and anymore most of the best software is freeto begin with, so meh.

I agree. The Express Edition of Microsoft Visual C# is perfectly free, and some of the best software I've seen. :teeth:

[technomage]

I agree. The Express Edition of Microsoft Visual C# is perfectly free, and some of the best software I've seen. :teeth:
*wince* He's been assimilated by the Borg.... :bawl:

[brother vinny]

*wince* He's been assimilated by the Borg.... :bawl:

i think it goes without saying once you're an MCP.

[A Cup of No]

Good post, JV. I was conviced of this too a while back. What also got me was that I would burn cds that I owned for other people. I asked my band teacher if he wanted me to burn it for him and he told me no. So after that I stopped that. It amazes me how quickly Christians dismiss the implications of illegally downloading music.

My friend was trying to nail me on it, so he said that I go to a certain myspace that has a few songs I like. Since the album is not released in America, the person had to have illegally downloaded it and put it on his myspace, so I am stealing by listening to it. I thought that this was unsubstantiated, because the person could very well have the Japanese version of the album, and listening to it on a myspace seemed to me the same as listening to it on a radio. I don't own the music - it is not on my harddrive. I only listen to it from a website.

He also told me that it's the same as going to a bookstore and reading the book there. While I've heard of some bookstores discouraging it, some I've seen have couches waiting for you. Am I "stealing" if I were to go everyday of the week and read a book in BN? I dunno.

But interesting food for that, and thanks for the great post.

[Jawa Man]

This entire thread is JawaMan's dream come true. For years, I have been a Romans 13 crusader against file-sharing. I am relieved to see other Christians take the same stance. I used to have about a hundred songs through Kazaa, back before it was majorly hax0red. I figured it must be legal, otherwise the government would have ordered it shut down. Then I read Time magazine one month and there was a huge article on file-sharing. That night, my songs went goodbye...

But yeah, obeying the law can sometimes majorly suck. However, without moral justification (in other words, not because "it sucks") there is no reason to break the law.

[A Cup of No]

This entire thread is JawaMan's dream come true.

My responding to one of your posts is also another dream come true. :teeth:

[Jawa Man]

My responding to one of your posts is also another dream come true. :teeth:
I am going to assume that all of your intentions in saying that were honorable.

[Rubia Warren]

Kazaa gave me worms.

[A Cup of No]

Kazaa gave me worms.

Nah, not getting on AIM and not talking to me did that. :eek:

[semmie]

Without even hitting Google, I'll go out on a limb and say: No, Yes, Yes, Yes.
why do you differentiate between showing someone how to play a song, and writing down the music for them to read and learn it themselves? i don't see much of a practical difference there. either way, i'm enabling another person to play someone's copyrighted material without having to purchase their sheet music.

and what does this do for musicians (like myself) who don't read music well (or at all)? i've been watching and listening to other musicians my entire life to learn how to play songs. is that wrong of me? should i have been puchasing sheet music all these years, even though i can't make heads or tails of it?

i don't think music is quite as cut and dried as a published book. maybe it is...i dunno. :shrug: i don't think, though, that authors write books with the knowledge that people reproduce books for the sake of personal enjoyment and discipline; whereas musicians do write songs with that knowledge. i mean, i might think it a different scenario if you asked me to teach you some song so you could record it...or resell it as your own...or something. but for the sake of personal discipline and pleasure? it's a little bit different than the latest Harry Potter, in my opinion.

[Sparko]

Actually, the RIAA is going around trying to shut down Guitar Tablature sites. But then that really does not speak to the legality of the issue, since they are legal bullies in a lot of cases even when they dont have a legal leg to stand on.

My opinion is that if you copied the tablature from something written down by the artist or someone else, and put it up for file sharing, that is just as bad as copying any other written document.

But if you listen to the song and write down the chords and tablature as you hear it, it becomes your interpretation of the music and you are the owner of the tablature with a dirivative copyright. You could then share that with others to use. I don't think you could pass it off as an original work though because it would be too close to the original.

A simple analogy would be some art student who copies a masterpiece to learn how to paint. The resultant painting would be an interpretation of the masterpiece and the artist who painted it would have a derivative copyright. they could share that painting with others as much as they wanted to as long as it was not tried to be passed off as the original. If they tried to pass it off as the original it would become forgery.

At least thats how I see it. But then I am not a lawyer. And you probably shouldn't take advice from someone with a pirate avatar.

ARRRR.

[TuckEverlasting]

Actually, the RIAA is going around trying to shut down Guitar Tablature sites. But then that really does not speak to the legality of the issue, since they are legal bullies in a lot of cases even when they dont have a legal leg to stand on.

My opinion is that if you copied the tablature from something written down by the artist or someone else, and put it up for file sharing, that is just as bad as copying any other written document.

But if you listen to the song and write down the chords and tablature as you hear it, it becomes your interpretation of the music and you are the owner of the tablature with a dirivative copyright. You could then share that with others to use. I don't think you could pass it off as an original work though because it would be too close to the original.

A simple analogy would be some art student who copies a masterpiece to learn how to paint. The resultant painting would be an interpretation of the masterpiece and the artist who painted it would have a derivative copyright. they could share that painting with others as much as they wanted to as long as it was not tried to be passed off as the original. If they tried to pass it off as the original it would become forgery.

At least thats how I see it. But then I am not a lawyer. And you probably shouldn't take advice from someone with a pirate avatar.

ARRRR.

Although I've not come to a definitive conclusion, what you've just said is exactly the idea that's been running around in my head as I've thought more about it. As a guitar player who has spent many hours of my own time figuring out how to play a song and writing it down for later, it never even occured to me that people might just copy it out of a tab book and then put it on the internet.

[Dwevlo]

I've been thinking about file-sharing a lot lately. I guess I have two points:

1) Not all file sharing is illegal.

There are legitimate uses for programs like Bit Torrent, some musicians allow their music to be copied, many books are not copyrighted and a whole lot of software is completely free.

Unfortunately given the current trend of legislation, there is a good chance all those legitimate uses won't exist in the future. Fair use will probably disappear. Which is why:

2) Not all file sharing should be illegal.

I agree that in general we should try and follow the laws here, but sometimes those laws are really quite stupid. Like:

Its illegal to rip a DVD to your hard drive. Doesn't matter if you are trying to sell it or anything, simply breaking the encryption scheme on the DVD is against the law.

Pretty much all mp3s are illegal. Not because they are copyrighted songs, but because the compression scheme (mp3) is itself copyrighted. How did that happen? I don't know. What do we do about it? I don't know. Should we not play MP3's unless we purchased (in some way) a license from the people who own the patent (who owns the patent... well thats complicated). The whole thing is a mess.

Other countries have entirely different copyright laws. But the internet is a global medium. Is it ok for me to pirate music, if I live in a country where thats not illegal?

The whole thing is a big mess, and its made worse for another reason. We are now at the point where technologically it is possible for us (1) to have no fair use rights, or (2) for copyrights to be completely unenforceable.

On one, just look at some of the trends in hardware. The next movie format to succeed DVD, is either Blu-Ray or HDDVD. Both implement the currently unfinished AACS system to prevent copying. Its end to end encryption making it impossible to copy the disc. (It is never decoded anywhere but the television you watch it on) This seems to be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to content distribution. In the future copyrights may be completely unnecessary (you just can't copy material, it would be impossible).

On the reverse its now possible to transfer files without detection. Bit Torrent programs have already implemented advanced Distributed Hash Table algorithms so that servers are no longer required (no single point of failure, means sharing is nearly impossible to stop). That and programs like PeerGuardian mean that your cable/phone company can't tell if you are doing something illegal. Then we've got networks like FreeNet, which supplies completely anonymous access. No one can see what you are doing (not even the Government). Thats the essence of strong encryption.

So where is it all going? I don't know. The more important question is where should it go? I think copyrights are a good thing and I think Fair Use rights are important. But if we don't do something, we'll have either one or the other, but not both.

[brother vinny]

:hrm: Still haven't heard from studyhound on why he thinks I've understated the complexity of the issue or oversimplified its resolution.

If it's any consolation, 'hound, my wife either disagrees with my conclusion or is in active rebellion against it, because she will not willfully delete her pirated library. So at least you have good company.

[$cirisme]

Its illegal to rip a DVD to your hard drive.

Well, I don't know what that has to do with filesharing needing to be legal, but that's false.

You can rip DVD's up and down. I've done so just yesterday.

It's illegal to break encryption.

Pretty much all mp3s are illegal.

Nonsense.

Not because they are copyrighted songs, but because the compression scheme (mp3) is itself copyrighted.

You can't copyright a compression scheme. It's patented. And all of the major rippers pay royalties to Fraunhofer to use it, ergo most MP3's are perfectly lawfull.

The only major exception I'm aware of is the open source LAME encoder that pays no royalties which makes LAME illegal. So far Fraunhofer has made no moves against LAME, though.

How did that happen? I don't know.

A bunch of engineers expended their time in coming up with a compression scheme and decided to use their legal right to patent it.

What do we do about it? I don't know. Should we not play MP3's unless we purchased (in some way) a license from the people who own the patent (who owns the patent... well thats complicated).

Why? Apple, MusicMatch, Nullsoft, etc all already pay money to ensure their MP3 players/encoders are licensed. Then they license their software to you.

You've grossly mischaracterized the legality of MP3's.

The whole thing is a mess.

Then use a patent-unencumbered open format such as Ogg Vorbis. The fact that it has next to no market share is irrelevant to your music collection because you won't be distributing it, so you have the freedom to choose compatible players.

Is it ok for me to pirate music, if I live in a country where thats not illegal?

Is stealing moral when it's not illegal?

That's what you're asking.

On the reverse its now possible to transfer files without detection. Bit Torrent programs have already implemented advanced Distributed Hash Table algorithms so that servers are no longer required (no single point of failure, means sharing is nearly impossible to stop). That and programs like PeerGuardian mean that your cable/phone company can't tell if you are doing something illegal. Then we've got networks like FreeNet, which supplies completely anonymous access. No one can see what you are doing (not even the Government). Thats the essence of strong encryption.

So where is it all going? I don't know. The more important question is where should it go? I think copyrights are a good thing and I think Fair Use rights are important. But if we don't do something, we'll have either one or the other, but not both.

Well, I think a reform of the copyright system needs to be made. EITHER you get to trust in the legal system and get full protection of copyright law OR you get to trust in technology to protect you. Why should you get both?

Part of the copyright contract with society is that society will benefit in some way through it now (fair use) and later. (eventual expiration)

If you've actively tried to impede the ability for your work to be used in a fair use manner (such as preventing customers from making copies for personal backup) or for it to eventually expire into the public domain, you've broken the terms of copyright and copyright should not apply.

MHO.

[Dwevlo]

It's illegal to break encryption.
And all commercial DVDs are encrypted, therefore its illegal to rip them to your hard drive. (Seems to me there is something wrong with making it illegal to break encryption anyway... we shouldn't use the law to protect crappy technology)

You can't copyright a compression scheme. It's patented. And all of the major rippers pay royalties to Fraunhofer to use it, ergo most MP3's are perfectly lawfull.

The only major exception I'm aware of is the open source LAME encoder that pays no royalties which makes LAME illegal. So far Fraunhofer has made no moves against LAME, though.
I meant patented sorry, but it would be interesting to find out just how many of the mp3s on the internet were made using the LAME encoder. (The other part of this mess is there is a disagreement on just who owns the patents) You're probably right though, these days nearly all new mp3s are gonna be made using a legal encoder. (Though you've gotta get a license if you wish to distribute an mp3 you make commercially - http://www.mp3licensing.com/help/index.html#5)

A bunch of engineers expended their time in coming up with a compression scheme and decided to use their legal right to patent it.
I meant how did it become the internet standard for music when the entire time it was patented...

Is stealing moral when it's not illegal?

That's what you're asking.
Its not always that simple. In general I would agree, but lets think about the analogy for a second.

You have a song on your computer, so I copy it to mine. Did I "steal" the song from you. Well no, you still have yours. I stole the song from the person who wrote the song. They control what I am allowed to do with their intellectual property. I'm not sure if stealing is the proper word to use here. The closest analogy we have is if I were to photocopy someones book. Thats certainly a violation of copyright, but did I "steal" the book? I guess so, but I don't think we normally use the word like that.

But in any event we are working on 2 levels - a moral and a legal. My point was only that the legal is not always clear, and we should really consider the moral side of the equation. (IE the system now seems to have problems, and seems to be heading in the wrong direction, how do we improve the situation without heading into intellectual property anarchy?)

Well, I think a reform of the copyright system needs to be made. EITHER you get to trust in the legal system and get full protection of copyright law OR you get to trust in technology to protect you. Why should you get both?
I'm saying that if things keep going the way they are going there is a good chance we will have no Fair Use rights at all. Every thing you are allowed to do with the music you listen to, the tv you watch, and the movies you buy will be completely controlled. Now thats possibility (1). Possibility (2) is that things like BitTorrent make file sharing so difficult to stop, that nothing is protected any longer. In the internet age its just too easy to violate copyrights with no risk of legal trouble. And it seems 2 leads to 1 (because companies won't make use of copyrights - as you said - if they offer no protection of service)

I will say on the issue of file-sharing, that the technology can be used for good purposes, though I am not sure if anyone is working on that at the moment. It has the capacity to give power to small churches who can't afford expensive bandwidth costs. Its an active area of study, and I just wonder if the "Don't Do It" mentality may have an Amish feel to it...

Maybe I am just not using the term "filesharing" in its standard usage. I think most people mean, downloading music I don't own, or getting software I didn't pay for. And I'll agree, you probably shouldn't be doing that.

-----

And as a side not, I'm not sure how software fits into this equation at all. (Of course I'm probably just shooting myself in the foot here... its my field) I don't think its right for Christians to sell software to churches, especially at the outrageous prices they charge... Of course that has nothing to do with piracy, nor am I advocating piracy, its just that there is something seriously wrong when I can download software made by a bunch of atheists (generally) for free, yet have to pay thousands of dollars to 'christians' for the same thing. (And boy are churches ever dumb when it comes to some of this stuff)

[Dwevlo]

And sorry about my first post, it was fairly flippant and not very carefully constructed... the whole mp3 thing was definitely overstated. (I'm gonna blame it on finals)

[$cirisme]

(Seems to me there is something wrong with making it illegal to break encryption anyway... we shouldn't use the law to protect crappy technology)

I go along with that.

I meant how did it become the internet standard for music when the entire time it was patented...

Until recently there have been no formats that are patent unencumbered that also compress well.

Its not always that simple.

I never said it was. You gave a general question and I gave a general response. There will be gray areas.

You have a song on your computer, so I copy it to mine. Did I "steal" the song from you. Well no, you still have yours. I stole the song from the person who wrote the song. They control what I am allowed to do with their intellectual property. I'm not sure if stealing is the proper word to use here. The closest analogy we have is if I were to photocopy someones book. Thats certainly a violation of copyright, but did I "steal" the book? I guess so, but I don't think we normally use the word like that.

Pardon me, but taking something without authorization and payment is the definition of stealing.

And I don't think this is a gray area at all. With any intangible property, all you have is a license (a contract...aka copyright law) that allows you to use the product in a specific way. Part of that contract says that there are limits to how the good may be redistributed.

It would be like I broke a contract with you and racked up a bunch of charges on your credit card. How is that stealing? All I did was cause a bunch of 0's and 1's to travel between our banks. I did not deprive you of anything, except for small portion of your entirely non-physical and intangible potential supply of money (credit limit). Under the definition some parrot, this isn't stealing at all.

But when someone redistributes music, they break a lawful contract (copyright law) and deprive the artist of a small portion of their non-physical and intangibe supply of money (lost sales).

There is a direct correlation there, and if you're going to call one stealing you have to call the other stealing or point out a flaw in my logic.

But in any event we are working on 2 levels - a moral and a legal. My point was only that the legal is not always clear, and we should really consider the moral side of the equation. (IE the system now seems to have problems, and seems to be heading in the wrong direction, how do we improve the situation without heading into intellectual property anarchy?)

Well, I don't think either is unclear. The moral side is that, yes, it's wrong.

The legal side is also clear: if you live in a country that allows unlimited unauthorised reproduction of copyrighted works, then why would it be illegal? Same if you country didn't recognize copyright status of materials in other countries. (but the second I would consider unethical, FWIW)

I'm saying that if things keep going the way they are going there is a good chance we will have no Fair Use rights at all. Every thing you are allowed to do with the music you listen to, the tv you watch, and the movies you buy will be completely controlled. Now thats possibility (1).

And, in an ideal world, my reform would be implemented and it wouldn't matter.

Possibility (2) is that things like BitTorrent make file sharing so difficult to stop, that nothing is protected any longer. In the internet age its just too easy to violate copyrights with no risk of legal trouble. And it seems 2 leads to 1 (because companies won't make use of copyrights - as you said - if they offer no protection of service)

Well, fair use doesn't give you the right to share stuff with the whole world. Sorry.

PS: I'm really an avid fan of BitTorrent for the innovative technology it uses. And I doubt it, as a whole, is going anywhere since Cohen signed a deal with the MPAA anyway. And that's the beauty anyway, since it's just another decentralized protocol like http.

I will say on the issue of file-sharing, that the technology can be used for good purposes, though I am not sure if anyone is working on that at the moment.

Then I don't think you are paying attention. (almost) Every Linux distro on earth distributes via BitTorrent (and for good reason). More podcast clients come with BT built in to help popular podcasts with their bandwidth, etc.

And of course, users benefit too because popular files are always available (and actually become faster and more readily available the more popular a resource is, unlike traditional distribution) and download speeds can be much faster. This makes BT ideal for distributing huge files, like video podcasts, linux distros, and illegal DVD's. :teeth:

And as a side not, I'm not sure how software fits into this equation at all. (Of course I'm probably just shooting myself in the foot here... its my field) I don't think its right for Christians to sell software to churches, especially at the outrageous prices they charge... Of course that has nothing to do with piracy, nor am I advocating piracy, its just that there is something seriously wrong when I can download software made by a bunch of atheists (generally) for free, yet have to pay thousands of dollars to 'christians' for the same thing. (And boy are churches ever dumb when it comes to some of this stuff)


Specialised software == specialised cost. All of the 'free' software that atheists produce (which is actually not necessarily true. You might surprised how many important packages were written by Christians) are in high demand and used by just about everybody. The church market is going to be limited, so everything's going to be limited. And limited resources also means limited ability to get going with open source packages.

The primary problem with Shelby and ACS isn't the cost of the software (which is generally small compared to support)... it's training. Lots of money is wasted because they're ridiculously hard to use, so lost productivity and training costs far outweigh the costs of the software. F1 is better, but a ton of the costs go to support and hosting.

But, if you feel so strongly about it, there are a number of open source movements to get a decent church management software together. I'd encourage you to check em out and contribute.

[Dwevlo]

There is a direct correlation there, and if you're going to call one stealing you have to call the other stealing or point out a flaw in my logic.
I agree, which is why I said I guess we should call it stealing.

The legal side is also clear: if you live in a country that allows unlimited unauthorised reproduction of copyrighted works, then why would it be illegal? Same if you country didn't recognize copyright status of materials in other countries. (but the second I would consider unethical, FWIW)
I think the legal side of things, at least in this country, is "clear" though it doesn't fit what we might have thought it was. (IE I can copy a cd as a "backup" copy, but can't do that with a DVD)

Well, fair use doesn't give you the right to share stuff with the whole world. Sorry.
I didn't say it did. I am simply saying that the reality is, with current FileSharing technology it is impossible to control copyright violations. This is why music copying is such a big problem. And now since copyrights won't give you any benefit, companies are simply going to use the big DRM stick to solve the problem, thus eliminating fair use rights. (I'm probably overly pessimistic, companies might play nice and keep giving us limited copying ability)

PS: I'm really an avid fan of BitTorrent for the innovative technology it uses. And I doubt it, as a whole, is going anywhere since Cohen signed a deal with the MPAA anyway. And that's the beauty anyway, since it's just another decentralized protocol like http.
I agree. Something will probably replace it in the not so distant future (there are a whole bunch of new P2P systems out there that have interesting features). But if the next BitTorrent replacement implements anonymous transfer (ala Freenet) how are the Entertainment industries going to stop file sharing? (The answer at the moment is end-to-end encryption... which means no copying at all)

Then I don't think you are paying attention. (almost) Every Linux distro on earth distributes via BitTorrent (and for good reason). More podcast clients come with BT built in to help popular podcasts with their bandwidth, etc.
I actually use BitTorrent on a regular basis... but yeah, I agree there are ways to do Good stuff with the technology (which is why "filesharing" is not wrong), I just don't think its realized its potential yet.

Specialised software == specialised cost. All of the 'free' software that atheists produce (which is actually not necessarily true. You might surprised how many important packages were written by Christians) are in high demand and used by just about everybody. The church market is going to be limited, so everything's going to be limited. And limited resources also means limited ability to get going with open source packages.

The primary problem with Shelby and ACS isn't the cost of the software (which is generally small compared to support)... it's training. Lots of money is wasted because they're ridiculously hard to use, so lost productivity and training costs far outweigh the costs of the software. F1 is better, but a ton of the costs go to support and hosting.

But, if you feel so strongly about it, there are a number of open source movements to get a decent church management software together. I'd encourage you to check em out and contribute.
Yeah, I agree. And there are some free programs out there written specifically for Churches and the like. I was just thinking that for software written specifically for churches, maybe we should think outside the box. Like maybe some church takes on, as a mission, the production of some element of software, which they can then provide freely for "the body" so to speak. (Just an idea)

And the comment on atheists was a really broad generalization, but I think the point stands. I have been a part of a couple smaller ministries, and they can't afford the software designed for churches. We were kind of lucky, because we had people who knew about open source software (and even knew how to write some software for the ministry), but I just realized how absurd the price difference is. Its like hey you can have roll-your-own software for free, or you can have software made for what you want to do for several thousand dollars... Seems the industry is making money off of people's ignorance. (But like I said, I am shooting myself in the foot here)

[Dave G]

Hmm...when does scripture denote commercial leaders as authorities? One of the reasons given for not copying music is "we should give to Caesar what is Caesar's"...but even when Christ said that, he wasn't giving everyone the mandate to give all their money back to Rome...
And I think that a direct commercial link to fans is better suited these days without the help of corporations and with the help of the internet. The history of blues and rock is crazy with the musicians not getting their money. If we are stealing, and we are stealing by breaking the copyrights of individuals or bands, then the RIAA shouldn't be involved at all. Unless, of course, the argument can be made that Commercial leaders are authorities that we must obey...

[Jade]

File-Swapping: A Christian Perspective
(snip)


hupotasso

1 Peter 2:13
Hebrews 13:17
Ephesians 5:22

:kiss:

[Losvedir]

So what about what I do:

I buy a song on iTunes and then download the corresponding mp3 from Limewire. Is that a problem? I've payed for the song, it's just the DRM is frustrating and inconvenient.

What about downloading songs for free and then sending the artists a small check? As I see it the record companies are obsolete and keep crying to Congress to solidify their hold on an industry that doesn't need them anymore (e.g. the DMCA. But you didn't see ice deliverers rushing to congress to outlaw home freezers did you?). With Garage Band and the like, and internet distribution, coupled with some sort of a peer-driven site like digg to help the good ones get discovered, a band is better off just going that way, I think.

Maybe downloading songs is exercising civil disobedience? I agree with Dwelvo that there are problems with the current system, and I don't like the way it's heading. There's got to be a better way that doesn't have these huge inefficiencies and waste of public goods, where the creators of content still get some renumeration.

As Peter from Sweden's The Pirate Bay says,

It's not the problem of the pirates, he tells me later, to figure out how to compensate artists or encourage invention away from the current intellectual property system -- someone else will figure that out. Their job is just to tear down the flawed system that exists, to force the hand of society to make something better.

If the next thing isn't good enough, they will tear that down, too.


edit: quote from this article (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/1,71544-0.html).

[Dwevlo]

I buy a song on iTunes and then download the corresponding mp3 from Limewire. Is that a problem? I've payed for the song, it's just the DRM is frustrating and inconvenient.
Thats illegal.

What about downloading songs for free and then sending the artists a small check?
Also illegal. (Unless the artist specifically allows such a thing -- if the artist is even allowed to himself)

Maybe downloading songs is exercising civil disobedience?
I don't know if its justified enough. I figure this problem will work itself out though.

And though I said I agreed with this statement: "But when someone redistributes music, they break a lawful contract (copyright law) and deprive the artist of a small portion of their non-physical and intangibe supply of money (lost sales)." I don't think I do anymore. What must be proved is that downloading music without contract actually deprives an artist of money he otherwise would've gotten. Indeed some artists depend on this wide-spread distribution in order to make money in the first place. Lets just call it what it is, copyright infringement. When you download music illegally you are not respecting the author's (not author's really, owner's) distribution intentions, something he usually has a right to decide.

[Abelard]

Don't forget the fair use provision of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

[Dwevlo]

Don't forget the fair use provision of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107
If a company chooses to encrypt their product (like a DVD, or a DRM protected song) then you won't be allowed to copy the product, even for fair-use reasons. This is because to do so would require breaking the encryption scheme, which is a violation of the DMCA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act). I doubt we will ever see unencrypted media produced again, so fair-use rights are pretty much a thing of the past. (Though I guess they still apply for books and stuff... unless they start making encrypted books?)

Now this isn't to say that you aren't allowed to copy DRM songs, or future media. Rather its that you don't have a 'right' to do so. The only way you are allowed to is if the people who make the media decide to let you. So a company like Apple gives you a lot of freedom to copy songs, but you won't see that freedom for DVDs (or Blu-Ray/HD-DVD for that matter).

Also to be fair, the DMCA does have some exceptions (like libraries / the government / research)...

[CallistoSeeking]

Don't forget the fair use provision of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
Hey--I know the topic of this thread is filesharing, but I was wondering if, if this is the copyright law--then do the same rules/morals apply to copying things such as pictures from movies/tvshows/comics/cartoons that we all do for such things (well, maybe not everyone) as our avatars or myspace backrounds or whatnot? I know it's easy as pie to go and find a picture to just copy and paste into whatever, but most of them have some sort (or the show/movie etc. does) of the little circle and the c. Is that a sin as well, or is stuff online free game? I never really thought about it.

[$cirisme]

If a company chooses to encrypt their product (like a DVD, or a DRM protected song) then you won't be allowed to copy the product, even for fair-use reasons. This is because to do so would require breaking the encryption scheme, which is a violation of the DMCA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act). I doubt we will ever see unencrypted media produced again, so fair-use rights are pretty much a thing of the past. (Though I guess they still apply for books and stuff... unless they start making encrypted books?)

Now this isn't to say that you aren't allowed to copy DRM songs, or future media. Rather its that you don't have a 'right' to do so. The only way you are allowed to is if the people who make the media decide to let you. So a company like Apple gives you a lot of freedom to copy songs, but you won't see that freedom for DVDs (or Blu-Ray/HD-DVD for that matter).

Also to be fair, the DMCA does have some exceptions (like libraries / the government / research)...
The other problem is that DRM/closed source prevents copyrighted material from expiring. Eventually, copyrights are supposed to expire, but the law makes that illegal for DRM. A great solution I heard was that copyright and DRM should be mutually exclusive. If you want DRM, then copyright law shouldn't apply as a means to protect your product.

[Dave G]

Hey--I know the topic of this thread is filesharing, but I was wondering if, if this is the copyright law--then do the same rules/morals apply to copying things such as pictures from movies/tvshows/comics/cartoons that we all do for such things (well, maybe not everyone) as our avatars or myspace backrounds or whatnot? I know it's easy as pie to go and find a picture to just copy and paste into whatever, but most of them have some sort (or the show/movie etc. does) of the little circle and the c. Is that a sin as well, or is stuff online free game? I never really thought about it.

Hi CS,

I don't remember where I read it, but one of the cases against filesharing music also made common reproduction of ANY art/photos/text illegal. I wish I knew the case number now...
because the upshot is that a child making a collage or report for school would be basically breaking the law.

[CallistoSeeking]

I guess then my question would be when does something fall under public domain and when is it just illegal copying? Because the net allows all kinds of copy/pasting that goes on, which I'd rather not just have fall under the "everyone goes 5miles over the speed limit, so it's ok" heading for me..But maybe it's too broad of a media to cover individually? Not sure. Wouldn't really know how to find it out, I guess, either--so I may just be butting in a thread I should not be!! lol :eek:

[Ninjalan]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here, because I've thought about this for a long time and still am not convinced either way:

Stealing - When you steal, you take something that you do not own, and the person you took it from no longer has it. It is now yours.

Copying - When you copy, you simply reproduce what has already been made, and nobody loses anything (but potentially a profit).

An example of stealing: Joe smuggles two bags of Cheetos out of the grocery store. Cheetos and/or the grocery store directly lose money because they have spent money to make a product, and now the product is gone. They now have to spend more money to replace it. This is a loss of actual profit.

And example of copying: Joe decides he likes Cheetos so much, that he wants to make his own. Somehow or another, he figures out the recipe for Cheetos and makes his own. He makes his own cheetos, that taste exactly like regular cheetos. Frito-Lay has not lost anything except potential profit.

An example of stealing: John likes the band "Duran Duran" a whole lot. He goes into Wal-Mart, finds the CD he wants, and then takes it without paying for it. He has cost the companies actual profit, because they have paid money to produce the CD, and now made none back.

An example of copying: John likes "Duran Duran," but likes just one hard-to-find song on one of their albums. He doesn't have the money to spend on an album, or a car to get to the store, so he just downloads the song on his internet. He probably wouldn't have bought the cd anyway, the record company didn't lose possesion of something it produced, John simply made a copy of the song he wanted. He would have recorded it off of the radio, but he wanted it without crossfades and voiceovers. Again, we don't normally find copying to be immoral (i.e. radio recording), so why are other forms of copying shocking to use? The only thing the company has lost is potential profit, and every single one of us causes a company to lose potential profit when we buy a competitors product, window shop and not buy anything, or watch a movie at a friends house. We do this every time we rent a movie or game, make brownies from scratch instead of buying them, grow our own crops, or stream internet radio.

Okay, devil's advocate argument over. Thoughts?

[And as a side not, I'm not sure how software fits into this equation at all. (Of course I'm probably just shooting myself in the foot here... its my field) I don't think its right for Christians to sell software to churches, especially at the outrageous prices they charge... Of course that has nothing to do with piracy, nor am I advocating piracy, its just that there is something seriously wrong when I can download software made by a bunch of atheists (generally) for free, yet have to pay thousands of dollars to 'christians' for the same thing. (And boy are churches ever dumb when it comes to some of this stuff)
On a side-note, I've always wondered this myself. Why do Christians rip off other Christians by selling horribly expensive software that does a terrible job compared to other free software. For instance, e-sword blows the water off of most other bible packages, and its free!

[TuckEverlasting]

Okay, devil's advocate argument over. Thoughts?

You've said some of the same things that have occurred to me as I've thought about the issue. Ironically, before I'd ever given it much thought, I used to be very much in the of-course-it's-wrong camp; after thinking about it fairly extensively, I am, like you, not convinced either way. There's even more that could be said than what you just posted, but what you posted is where it starts, I think.

[Darth Executor]

The only probelm I have with file swapping (illegal files) is that it's illegal. If it wasn't I'd be for it all the way. How would people like to pay 100 bucks to Paul Inc. for the privilege of being allowed to read Paul's epistles? Copyright did not exist in Jesus's time and people "stole" other people's writings and research all the time while rarely bothering to quote the author.

[Dave G]

The only probelm I have with file swapping (illegal files) is that it's illegal. If it wasn't I'd be for it all the way. How would people like to pay 100 bucks to Paul Inc. for the privilege of being allowed to read Paul's epistles? Copyright did not exist in Jesus's time and people "stole" other people's writings and research all the time while rarely bothering to quote the author.

Remember, though, that the court cases are being won in the realm of copyright law. There is no state or federal law prohibiting file share to my knowledge. I wrote my state representative about it and got a political answer...they were trying to find a solution for everyone that doesn't completely eliminate the legal sharing of files.

[Smokering]

I'm more or less a pirate ideologically, but not in practice. (Partly for messy authority-related moral reasons, and partly because I'm dim with computers, but that's a whole different issue).

The idea that ideas are our own is not a Christian one; the Bible states that all ideas come from God, as He causes all things and is sovereign. The Bible does not specifically state 'Knowledge belongs to the world', but the concept of sharing is present in the NT church which had 'all things in common', and in basic teachings about greed, charity and so on.

A common argument against piracy is that nobody really needs entertainment (music and movies, for example), so it's perfectly moral to charge exorbitant prices. There's a point there, sort of, but the fact is that the law doesn't distinguish between 'fluffy' intellectual property (a catchy pop song with vacuous lyrics) and 'vital' intellectual property (a cancer cure). Under current intellectual property law, a man who discovered a cure for cancer serendipitously could legally charge $100,000 a dose for it until his copyright expired, and sue anyone who tried to 'rip off' his product. Is this right, I ask ye?

Furthermore the whole encryption deal is a very corrupt affair. In America, I believe it's illegal to play your own CD/DVD on your own Linux computer, because that requires de-encryption...

[KingsGambit]

I apologize for bumping this three years later, but I figured it would be better than starting a new thread.

Like the OP, as a teenager 6-7 years ago, I probably downloaded thousands of music files but repented years ago. I have destroyed what copies I still have, but most are on a computer I got rid of years ago. I know that the Bible pushes making restitution for harming others. Do I need to try to think of every song out of the thousands I borrowed and try to legally make a copy? (The Old Testament does push repaying debts even if you have to go into slavery.) I realistically could not; I am a student teacher who has no time to work right now, plus I can't remember most of what I downloaded.

[Philosophickle]

I apologize for bumping this three years later, but I figured it would be better than starting a new thread.

edited by a moderator

I know that the Bible pushes making restitution for harming others.

edited by a moderator


No, because downloading music isn't wrong. Well, it's illegal, so if that bothers you then definitely, rack your brain and try to hunt down every CD and pay someone for it.

:tongue:

[KingsGambit]

No, because downloading music isn't wrong. Well, it's illegal, so if that bothers you then definitely, rack your brain and try to hunt down every CD and pay someone for it.

:tongue:

My more serious point, I suppose, is, theologically, to what extent is the Christian required to make restitution in such a case?

And I'm cheap. I'd probably just buy individual downloads, if I could afford them right now :smile:

[Philosophickle]

My more serious point, I suppose, is, theologically, to what extent is the Christian required to make restitution in such a case?

And I'm cheap. I'd probably just buy individual downloads, if I could afford them right now :smile:

I couldn't say. I don't believe in intellectual property so your feelings of guilt in this situation are completely foreign to me.

[Philosophickle]

This reminds me of those pathetic commercials, like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZm8vNHBSU&feature=related

Uh, actually if I could steal a car from someone by simply making a copy of their car at no cost to either of us, I definitely would.

[KingsGambit]

Rupert Murdoch (he of the I can get fair use declared illegal persuasion) would approve.

[Matt M]

This one christian guy has a really good article on this subject:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/green-p1.html

[Matt M]

Phil, clean out your inbox. I've been trying to send you a message.

[Philosophickle]

Yessir!

[Michelle]

Yessir!

:ahem: Maybe if you'd stop getting infractions, your box wouldn't perpetually be full.

[Philosophickle]

:ahem: Maybe if you'd stop getting infractions, your box wouldn't perpetually be full.

I don't ask for them, I just keep getting them. I think the mods have a collective crush on me.