Is it ever OK for a Christian to download copyrighted material?

[hetkindvangod@g]

I would say no, in general. The people inventing art and engineering inventions need to be rewarded for their innovation. The Bible clearly states that owning property is a right for all, so does the declaration of human rights.

I am sad to say that most of my fellow Christians in Norway, at least the ones under the age of 30, do not acknowledge the copyright. Or, only to the extent that they won't feel comfortable making money off of it.

Of course we Christians have to follow the law. But if an immoral act is legalised, it doesn't make it any less immoral - and so whether this practice is legal in the US or some European countries isn't all that important.

I think that one has an obligation to pay whoever made the product, regardless how hard or costly it might be. The market will regulate the price, as it always does.

How do you people feel about this?

[luv1another]

I think it depends on what you mean. some things allow you to copyright so much of the thing and laws are diffrent in diffrent countries.
also old songs over I think its 30 years old (I think its 30 would need to check0 you are allowed to copy :shrug:
if however it is clearly against the law then no you shouldnt be copying it.... we are after all supposed to follow the laws of our country.

[Timothy Leary]

kaz is that a stargate atlantis avatar?

and you've also got to consider that a lot of artists don't care if you download their music
and the music industry isn't going to instantly die if it became completely legal anyways.
underground bands thrive, and never care about who downloads their music.
people pay for good music, for good concerts.

[4given4life]

I would say no, in general. The people inventing art and engineering inventions need to be rewarded for their innovation. The Bible clearly states that owning property is a right for all, so does the declaration of human rights.

I am sad to say that most of my fellow Christians in Norway, at least the ones under the age of 30, do not acknowledge the copyright. Or, only to the extent that they won't feel comfortable making money off of it.

Of course we Christians have to follow the law. But if an immoral act is legalised, it doesn't make it any less immoral - and so whether this practice is legal in the US or some European countries isn't all that important.

I think that one has an obligation to pay whoever made the product, regardless how hard or costly it might be. The market will regulate the price, as it always does.

How do you people feel about this?Technically the Christians aren't under the law. They're under grace. As the thread on the ten commandments being abolished for Christians today proved. Though I could do it without the usage of the website though. I've been sited for copyright violations from that website I post from. None of the web pages I posted from has copyrights on them though. I would say that the www.bible.ca website has more material on their website about cults than most that I've seen. Sabbatarianism being the main cult they're against. Many of the anti-sabbath websites link to it. There's also three or four separate debates/discussions about whether the sabbath is enjoined upon Christians today.

[dizzle]

You think not being under the law (whatever that means) means that we are free to break the civil laws with impunity? Is rape now okay? Murder? Or is it just stealing?

[4given4life]

You think not being under the law (whatever that means) means that we are free to break the civil laws with impunity? Is rape now okay? Murder? Or is it just stealing?Is it ok to be angry with a brother without a cause? Is it ok to lust now? Is there to be no commitment? Are we supposed to speak a lie? Are we not able to have forgiveness? Are we to hate Muslims or anyone that isn't of the Christian faith? Also, civil laws change with the winds of time. We aren't justified by the keeping of any law. Justification has always and ever will be by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

My answer would be - yes, it's wrong unless there's a good reason. Do I always live by my own standards? No. :sad:

[dizzle]

Is it ok to be angry with a brother without a cause? Is it ok to lust now? Is there to be no commitment? Are we supposed to speak a lie? Are we not able to have forgiveness? Are we to hate Muslims or anyone that isn't of the Christian faith? Also, civil laws change with the winds of time. We aren't justified by the keeping of any law. Justification has always and ever will be by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Huh? That didn't answer my question.

[dizzle]

My answer would be - yes, it's wrong unless there's a good reason. Do I always live by my own standards? No. :sad:

Yes I agree. But it is oohhhh sooo easy to find loopholes (not speaking to you, speaking to my own nature that would like to find ways to justify every sin under the sun).

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

But it is oohhhh sooo easy to find loopholes (not speaking to you,...Well you should be!

[Sheepdog]

What if, for instance, I had cassette tapes, but they were destroyed by circumstances out of my control? In that case I already compensated the artists. The record industry got it's pound of flesh.

I agree though, most rationalizations really don't justify (illicitly) downloading copyrighted material. If any. 4given4life, have you read Romans 13? seriously. Where a worker (artist, etc) as a right to his wages.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

kaz is that a stargate atlantis avatar?

and you've also got to consider that a lot of artists don't care if you download their music
and the music industry isn't going to instantly die if it became completely legal anyways.The problem is that the artists don't have the authority to make that call. The Record label and all other parties involved have rights in this.

[dizzle]

What if, for instance, I had cassette tapes, but they were destroyed by circumstances out of my control? In that case I already compensated the artists. The record industry got it's pound of flesh.

Yes that is what I mean.... we can always find reasons.... I have used a similar reason myself quite recently. I lost my Season One DVDs of 24. Couldn't find them. I wanted to watch somethng so I started the download on bit-torrent rationalizing that I already bought them.... Fortunately for me, bit torrent takes forever and after 15 minutes or so, I cancelled the download because the angel on my right shoulder won over the devil on my left. But if it was instantaneous, the flesh definitely would have won the day.

[4given4life]

What if, for instance, I had cassette tapes, but they were destroyed by circumstances out of my control? In that case I already compensated the artists. The record industry got it's pound of flesh.

I agree though, most rationalizations really don't justify (illicitly) downloading copyrighted material. If any. 4given4life, have you read Romans 13? seriously. Where a worker (artist, etc) as a right to his wages.The word worker doesn't appear in Romans chapter 13. In context Romans 13 is talking about the tribute/power of the government and to other people. As long as government obeys God's Word, stay with tribute to that government.

[A-Man]

There are some good points here. I look at it like this:
I have paid for most of my MP3s.
I have downloaded some music which I used to have in CD/LP format, but for whatever reason no longer have that particular medium. As Sheepster said, they already got their pound of flesh.

That's about it for me. 4G4L, I have no clue what you're talking about. We are under every single law our particular country has established, unless it is a clear contridiction of Scripture. We are also under the Law of Christ.

[4given4life]

There are some good points here. I look at it like this:
I have paid for most of my MP3s.
I have downloaded some music which I used to have in CD/LP format, but for whatever reason no longer have that particular medium. As Sheepster said, they already got their pound of flesh.

That's about it for me. 4G4L, I have no clue what you're talking about. We are under every single law our particular country has established, unless it is a clear contridiction of Scripture. We are also under the Law of Christ.TAM, I was responding to TheAlmightySheepdog's version of Romans chapter 13. When civil laws contradict what's revealed in God's Word that's the time to start speaking out about it. That goes for civil laws of any country. Are we to accept Canada's stand that the bible is hate speech? They've already ruled it law.

[dizzle]

What does that have to do with a law against stealing? (BTW you never answered my question as to the relevancy of your "under grace" statement. If you stole from me, I doubt the police, which I would call, would let you go because you said you were under grace)

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

TAM, I was responding to TheAlmightySheepdog's version of Romans chapter 13. When civil laws contradict what's revealed in God's Word that's the time to start speaking out about it. That goes for civil laws of any country. Are we to accept Canada's stand that the bible is hate speech? They've already ruled it law.Obeying copyright laws by not downloading copyrighted material does not require you to disobey God, does it?

[A-Man]

TAM, I was responding to TheAlmightySheepdog's version of Romans chapter 13. When civil laws contradict what's revealed in God's Word that's the time to start speaking out about it. That goes for civil laws of any country. Are we to accept Canada's stand that the bible is hate speech? They've already ruled it law.

I was referring to the statement you made "Technically the Christians aren't under the law. They're under grace" While that is true, I don't see correlation between the Law of Moses being relevant for the Christian, and whether we can download at our particular whim.

[TuckEverlasting]

I have used a similar reason myself quite recently. I lost my Season One DVDs of 24. Couldn't find them. I wanted to watch somethng so I started the download on bit-torrent rationalizing that I already bought them

Are you sure this doesn't fall under the concept of 'fair use'? I have no idea if it does, but if it doesn't, it should.

A great example of why current laws regarding copyright law and 'intellectual property' seriously need to get with the times and the technology. I just don't think it's accurate to say that making your own copy of something is stealing.

[Just Some Dude]

The problem is that the artists don't have the authority to make that call. The Record label and all other parties involved have rights in this.

I would think that if the people who made the music didn't care how it got distributed, there is no real good argument for saying that a certain company must make money off of selling it. If some guy makes something and has stated he doesn't care who downloads it for free, I don't see where the record labels think they have the authority to say "no." (And no, I have yet to download any piece of music using this as a reason, although I don't see why this isn't a legitmate reason). I probably don't know the whole story though.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I would think that if the people who made the music didn't care how it got distributed, there is no real good argument for saying that a certain company must make money off of selling it. If some guy makes something and has stated he doesn't care who downloads it for free, I don't see where the record labels think they have the authority to say "no." (And no, I have yet to download any piece of music using this as a reason, although I don't see why this isn't a legitmate reason). I probably don't know the whole story though.That would make sense if you were recording songs that the band played in the garage, or with their own studio, that nobody else invested anything in.

But it is obvious common sense that if you, say, write a book, and a publishing company takes the risk of investing lots of money, printing and distributing your book, for sale, that YOU personally have no right to say "It's fine to take that book, published by that company who paid to produce it, and photocopy it for free."

Sorry, you a flat out wrong. The artist is not the only one with a legitimate interest in the product.

[Just Some Dude]

Figures I didn't know the whole story. In that case, I do have to agree with you.

Actually, while I'm at it, I might as well ask if you know what happens in the case of music of a video game that you own.

[Sheepdog]

The word worker doesn't appear in Romans chapter 13.

it's a different passage, in the Gospels though repeated by Paul. "A worker deserves his wages" or something like that.

In context Romans 13 is talking about the tribute/power of the government and to other people. As long as government obeys God's Word, stay with tribute to that government.

In context? In the historical context, which governments were obeying God's word, when Rom. 13 was penned? Certainly not Rome, nor Judea, nor any of the surrounding pagan states.

The only justification to disobey a law is when the law is obliging you to violate God's word. Selfish reasons just don't cut it, even if the government isn't obeying God per se.

[Sheepdog]

Are you sure this doesn't fall under the concept of 'fair use'? I have no idea if it does, but if it doesn't, it should.

A great example of why current laws regarding copyright law and 'intellectual property' seriously need to get with the times and the technology. I just don't think it's accurate to say that making your own copy of something is stealing.

Excellent point. Fair Use laws are much older and more established than the DMCA and other similar laws. Technically, it's illegal to rip music CD's, even for private use. the thing is, it would be overridden by Fair Use if it went to court, hence they only go after the file sharers.

in case it seems like i'm waffling on this issue.... well, i am. :lol:

[dizzle]

Are you sure this doesn't fall under the concept of 'fair use'? I have no idea if it does, but if it doesn't, it should.

A great example of why current laws regarding copyright law and 'intellectual property' seriously need to get with the times and the technology. I just don't think it's accurate to say that making your own copy of something is stealing.

Fair use? Seriously just asking as a Christian - shouldn't I be more concerned with the rights of others rather than my own? Furthermore with bittorrent, at least the free versions, you are uploading as well as downloading so it is more than just getting another copy.

[4given4life]

I was referring to the statement you made "Technically the Christians aren't under the law. They're under grace" While that is true, I don't see correlation between the Law of Moses being relevant for the Christian, and whether we can download at our particular whim.Number one mistake commonly made amongst Christians in thinking that there's only two laws instead of one. According to the scriptures, there's no distinction between the civil laws or ceremonial/moral laws. I can prove the same about the Sabbath command.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Number one mistake commonly made amongst Christians in thinking that there's only two laws instead of one. According to the scriptures, there's no distinction between the civil laws or ceremonial/moral laws. I can prove the same about the Sabbath command.
What has that to do with anything here?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Figures I didn't know the whole story. In that case, I do have to agree with you.

Actually, while I'm at it, I might as well ask if you know what happens in the case of music of a video game that you own.You mean, if you make a backup copy of it?

I don't know actually, that varies from one place to another, I think.

[4given4life]

it's a different passage, in the Gospels though repeated by Paul. "A worker deserves his wages" or something like that.



In context? In the historical context, which governments were obeying God's word, when Rom. 13 was penned? Certainly not Rome, nor Judea, nor any of the surrounding pagan states.

The only justification to disobey a law is when the law is obliging you to violate God's word. Selfish reasons just don't cut it, even if the government isn't obeying God per se.If you would've noticed in the whole chapter about the higher powers which are governments whether they be Judean or Roman are all established by God. Paul wrote it when the Roman leaders were corrupt and Christianity was considered a crime. As for the wages subject the only spot in Romans where wages is discussed is in Romans 6:23. Just a quick question: Was the American Revolution a violation of verses 1-2?

[4given4life]

What has that to do with anything here?That was in response to TAM who used the phrase Moses' law. What I'm saying is there's no distinction in between God's law and Moses's law as some may think there is.

[A-Man]

Number one mistake commonly made amongst Christians in thinking that there's only two laws instead of one. According to the scriptures, there's no distinction between the civil laws or ceremonial/moral laws. I can prove the same about the Sabbath command.

I think we're really passing each other in this discussion for whatever reason.
Let me try again.
The OP:



I would say no, in general. The people inventing art and engineering inventions need to be rewarded for their innovation. The Bible clearly states that owning property is a right for all, so does the declaration of human rights.
I am sad to say that most of my fellow Christians in Norway, at least the ones under the age of 30, do not acknowledge the copyright. Or, only to the extent that they won't feel comfortable making money off of it.
Of course we Christians have to follow the law. But if an immoral act is legalised, it doesn't make it any less immoral - and so whether this practice is legal in the US or some European countries isn't all that important.
I think that one has an obligation to pay whoever made the product, regardless how hard or costly it might be. The market will regulate the price, as it always does.
How do you people feel about this?

Your response, 4G4L:
Technically the Christians aren't under the law. They're under grace. As the thread on the ten commandments being abolished for Christians today proved. Though I could do it without the usage of the website though. I've been sited for copyright violations from that website I post from. None of the web pages I posted from has copyrights on them though. I would say that the www.bible.ca (http://www.bible.ca/) website has more material on their website about cults than most that I've seen. Sabbatarianism being the main cult they're against. Many of the anti-sabbath websites link to it. There's also three or four separate debates/discussions about whether the sabbath is enjoined upon Christians today.

My confusiuon is why you brought up the distinction between law and grace. That doesn't have anything to do with the subject at hand. Nothing. The OP wants to know about copyrighted material. The law that we are under for this particular issue is whatever law the country in which we abide has written. We as Christians are under that particular copyright law. The distinction between law and grace is a totally different issue and does not apply here.

[4given4life]

I think we're really passing each other in this discussion for whatever reason.
Let me try again.
The OP:





Your response, 4G4L:


My confusiuon is why you brought up the distinction between law and grace. That doesn't have anything to do with the subject at hand. Nothing. The OP wants to know about copyrighted material. The law that we are under for this particular issue is whatever law the country in which we abide has written. We as Christians are under that particular copyright law. The distinction between law and grace is a totally different issue and does not apply here.You're the one that said Christians are under the law to begin with. Whether it'd be men's laws or God's laws.

[A-Man]

You're the one that said Christians are under the law to begin with. Whether it'd be men's laws or God's laws.

Are you saying we are not under these particular copyright laws??

[Sheepdog]

If you would've noticed in the whole chapter about the higher powers which are governments whether they be Judean or Roman are all established by God. Paul wrote it when the Roman leaders were corrupt and Christianity was considered a crime.

i couldn't have made my point better than you just did.

despite that, Paul calls us to obey them, at least where they don't contradict God's law.


As for the wages subject the only spot in Romans where wages is discussed is in Romans 6:23.

I told you, it's in the Gospels. Luke 10:7 to be precise. Paul repeats in 1Tim 5:18. The context is full time ministry in both cases, but the general principle applies to all areas of life. You don't steal a candy bar. Why? (Besides just, "It's wrong.") Because the seller of the candy bar put a lot of work and resources into making that candy bar available, and so he deserves to be fairly compensated for it.

The same principle applies to fair compensation to artists, software designers, etc. When you download a song, you benefit from an artists hard work. The artist, record company, etc. have a right to compensation for the music you listen to, unless they decided to provide it for free, like say on the radio, or some indie groups that provide tracks for free download.

Just a quick question: Was the American Revolution a violation of verses 1-2?

No. The Revolution was quite arguably a clash between two authorities, the Founding Fathers (who via Romans 13 were entrusted with the sword for the welfare of colonial America), and the King of England. This is more of a Just Cause question than a question of submitting to authority. Incidentally, there are some Christians who would say the Revolution was unjust. I believe it was a just war, based on my studies, but it's not relevant here either way.

[Timothy Leary]

This question begs another question:

Is 'intellectual property' biblical?

[Just Some Dude]

You mean, if you make a backup copy of it?

I don't know actually, that varies from one place to another, I think.

Well, I'm 99% sure that where I live is cool with backup copies (and I don't think the areas where it is illegal will give two figs about it anyways, but that's besides the point), meaning I'm in the green for the most part. I should be in the green in full pretty soon too.

As for intellectual property being Scriptural, that is a good question and something that's struck me. I haven't really seen any verse that can be used against such a notion, or even for such a notion (then again, it's probably a verse I've read a twenty times that will make the subject clear). I would think that you should respect the fact that someone else invented something, and you should honor that. If someone makes a spiffy piece of music, they made it, not you.

Regardless, even if "intellectual property" is anti-Scriptural, I don't think it would be a sin to let society go about their way with it. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's. They think it is, and we don't exactly need the music anyways. I could be all mistaken, but I highly doubt that God would consider it a sin to let society have its way here (and I doubt the Scriptures are deliberately against an individual wanting some to be paid for them to play their music for you).

[4given4life]

Are you saying we are not under these particular copyright laws??What I'm saying is Christians aren't under any law whether it be man-made or God's.

[4given4life]

i couldn't have made my point better than you just did.

despite that, Paul calls us to obey them, at least where they don't contradict God's law.



I told you, it's in the Gospels. Luke 10:7 to be precise. Paul repeats in 1Tim 5:18. The context is full time ministry in both cases, but the general principle applies to all areas of life. You don't steal a candy bar. Why? (Besides just, "It's wrong.") Because the seller of the candy bar put a lot of work and resources into making that candy bar available, and so he deserves to be fairly compensated for it.

The same principle applies to fair compensation to artists, software designers, etc. When you download a song, you benefit from an artists hard work. The artist, record company, etc. have a right to compensation for the music you listen to, unless they decided to provide it for free, like say on the radio, or some indie groups that provide tracks for free download.



No. The Revolution was quite arguably a clash between two authorities, the Founding Fathers (who via Romans 13 were entrusted with the sword for the welfare of colonial America), and the King of England. This is more of a Just Cause question than a question of submitting to authority. Incidentally, there are some Christians who would say the Revolution was unjust. I believe it was a just war, based on my studies, but it's not relevant here either way.You originally said it was found in Romans 13. Then when proven wrong you scoot around the issue and say nope I said it was in the gospels. You can't have it both ways. No one here has mentioned Limewire. All they've mentioned is candy bar analogies or music analogies. Plus people don't realize that copyrights expire after a certain length of time. Unless the owner renews the copyright.

[A-Man]

What I'm saying is Christians aren't under any law whether it be man-made or God's.

So you are an antinominian. I thought so, but wasn't sure. I suggest that you give some thought to the following passages:

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone (James 2:21-24).

who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear, though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered. And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him, called by God as High Priest “according to the order of Melchizedek,” of whom we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. (Hebrews 5:7-11)

Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. (Galatians 6:1-3)

To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. 22To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. (1 Corinthians 9:20-22)

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted.
And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. (Matthew 28:16-20, also known as the Great Commision)

[Sheepdog]

You originally said it was found in Romans 13. Then when proven wrong you scoot around the issue and say nope I said it was in the gospels.

why oh why are you making this into an issue? technically i was trying to ask you about both passages. Romans 13, and the Luke verse. In my original post i typed too fast, i can see how you conflated the two. fair enough. but i clarified in my second post.

is there something wrong with Romans 13? Did Paul fudge about submitting to authorities?

is there something wrong with Luke 10:7? did Jesus lie when he said a worker deserves his wages?

both passages are applicable here. why you ignore that and prefer to impugn my character is a complete mystery to me.

You can't have it both ways.

from my vantage point, i'm not the one trying to have it both ways.

No one here has mentioned Limewire.

indeed, no one has.

All they've mentioned is candy bar analogies or music analogies. Plus people don't realize that copyrights expire after a certain length of time. Unless the owner renews the copyright.

it varies depending on what format we are talking about, but for the most part copyrights in the US don't expire for 50 years or so after the death of the author.

[Kelp]

[I don't know any other way to subscribe to this thread, sorry]

[Ecualegacy]

Interesting discussion, considering that a month ago I was pricked in the heart about this very subject. Someone asked something to the effect of "is intellectual property scriptural?" It is in the sense that it is recognized by the laws of the land (US at least) and we as Christians are supposed to obey the laws of the governing authorities.

[Ecualegacy]

Regarding the "pound of flesh" justification. I happen to share this idea currently. I strive to no longer listen to mp3 on the internet unless I somewhere have paid for them. iTunes is a great place to pay for mp3's you want to keep for $.99 a song and usually less than disc price for an album.

Now, you do sign a contract at such online stores limiting the mp3's use. Here is where we get into letter and intent of law. After I've paid, I typically go somewhere that I can find a free mp3 copy and download it so I can listen to my music anywhere I please. Am I breaking the letter of my agreement with iTunes? Yes. Am I breaking the intent? I don't think so. I've paid for the song. I don't want to lose the copy when my computer eventually crashes and built-in codes prevent me from listening to the song on another computer. Note, this may or may not be an issue, but it is just not something I am worried about. My point is that the intent of the online agreement is to curb the rabid peer2peer sharing out there between people who don't own a legitimate copy of the music.

[Ecualegacy]

An added thought. Am I a hypocrite for using peer2peer sites for free downloads if I disagree with them? I'm splitting hairs a bit here, but I don't pay for those sites. I suppose if they are running adds, someone is making money illegally. Perhaps I should rethink my position in light of that thought. Any comments?

[Ecualegacy]

BTW: My conscience even prevents me from enjoying many a fan video on YouTube or Google Video unless I have a legitimate copy of both the background music and the video footage elsewhere.

[hetkindvangod@g]

There are some good points here. I look at it like this:
I have paid for most of my MP3s.
I have downloaded some music which I used to have in CD/LP format, but for whatever reason no longer have that particular medium. As Sheepster said, they already got their pound of flesh.


Have you got the right to say that their price has been paid? A book is also a cheap medium to produce in bulk. Does that mean you can just download a copy and have it printed, just because it was destroyed by, say, a bolt of lightning?

Examine yourself: is it because they're paid for one unit already, or is it because it's easy for you to download the file? I can't see how anyone can defend such actions. We all experience events that happen that destroy our property, and where no legal entities can be blamed. We still can't demand a new copy of the merchandise, even though it might be cheap or even free. It has to be a company policy for that to be morally feasable.

When it comes to videos on the web, I think we should abstain from obvious feature films that have been ripped, but I'm not so sure when it comes to music videos. After all, these can be watched on numerous TV channels for no charge at all. They are kind of the most effective ad the music industry has. And it wouldn't be right to pay to see and ad, would it?

However, if the industry sees it differently, we will have to adhere to that.

[A-Man]

Have you got the right to say that their price has been paid? A book is also a cheap medium to produce in bulk. Does that mean you can just download a copy and have it printed, just because it was destroyed by, say, a bolt of lightning?

i see no ethical problem with my previous statements. You'll have to prove me wrong here via some specific legal documentation (A-man is breaking the law because he has an Mp3 copy of a tune he previously purchased in another format), not your assumptions.

BTW it is perfectly legal to make a copy of your music provided it is only for your private use. That's how I look at it.

Examine yourself: is it because they're paid for one unit already, or is it because it's easy for you to download the file?You read what I wrote. I said it's because I already PURCHASED IT. Examine your attitude.

I can't see how anyone can defend such actions. We all experience events that happen that destroy our property, and where no legal entities can be blamed. We still can't demand a new copy of the merchandise, even though it might be cheap or even free. It has to be a company policy for that to be morally feasable.Then prove me wrong (see above) and I'll delete them. It's no big deal as most of the music I listen to is on the CD and LP format. They are the originals too, not burned copies, just to let you know.

When it comes to videos on the web, I think we should abstain from obvious feature films that have been ripped, but I'm not so sure when it comes to music videos. After all, these can be watched on numerous TV channels for no charge at all. They are kind of the most effective ad the music industry has. And it wouldn't be right to pay to see and ad, would it?

I have no videos of any sort on my ibook.

[Sheepdog]

Let's consider another scenario. You have some CD's you ripped to mp3's. But then, you leave the CD's in the car one day and someone steals them.

Question: do you delete the mp3's?

I don't think that's necessary. When you buy a CD, you don't pay for the CD. CD's don't cost $15 to manufacture. At mass production rates, they cost literally pennies per CD. What you are paying for, then, is not the physical hardware, and really not even for the song (since you can listen to it on the radio for free. you can even record it off the radio, thanks to the legal haggling of Sony and other cassette recorder manufacturers, when their interests were to actually please the customer). What you pay for is a license to listen to and use the music content in any way you please so long as you stay under the umbrella of Fair Use.

Really, you don't even pay for a tangible, paper license. it's more like an unwritten contract between you and the label, manufacturer, and the artist. at any rate, it's not tied to the physical hardware.


To be fair, though, no one has addressed DD's point, that with file sharing apps you are redistributing the content, because while you download the parts you have are made available for others do download. Redistribution without permission, of course, is a violation of copyright.

[A-Man]

To be fair, though, no one has addressed DD's point, that with file sharing apps you are redistributing the content, because while you download the parts you have are made available for others do download. Redistribution without permission, of course, is a violation of copyright.

That is easily circumvented, Sheepster. You can download them to another folder other than the default folder that the program installs. You can also prohibit uploads period.

[dizzle]

This seems like an exercise in justification to me. So it is cool to download material and

1. use someone else's bandwidth but circumvent the sharing aspect
2. obtain from other people who likely got it illegally as well

[dizzle]

And guys, I really don't want to come off as holier than thou. I have done similar things, not often, but I have - but I know it wasn't right no matter how I might find some reasons for it. I am not trying to cast stones at anyone, please don't take it that way.

[A-Man]

This seems like an exercise in justification to me. So it is cool to download material and

1. use someone else's bandwidth but circumvent the sharing aspect
2. obtain from other people who likely got it illegally as well

Point made. I will delete my MP3s that I downloaded from limewire. I will also delete the Limewire program as well.

[dizzle]

I had downloaded some Xena episodes in the past, and then deleted them because I felt bad. Please, I am not perfect here whatsoever and have a LOT of my own growth to do, and just ask everyone to examine their own conscience. I don't want to be in a position to judge anyone, because I am certainly not spotless at all. I don't download stuff any more, but I do use ways to circumvent DRM at times with music I got properly, and yeah, I justify it, but it likely isn't right either. I have my own examinations to do as well.

[A-Man]

I had downloaded some Xena episodes in the past, and then deleted them because I felt bad. Please, I am not perfect here whatsoever and have a LOT of my own growth to do, and just ask everyone to examine their own conscience. I don't want to be in a position to judge anyone, because I am certainly not spotless at all. I don't download stuff any more, but I do use ways to circumvent DRM at times with music I got properly, and yeah, I justify it, but it likely isn't right either. I have my own examinations to do as well.

I believe you. I didn't think you were being judgemental at all. I actually never really thought about point #2 as I should have. :duh:

I guess the only way I could now view the "borrowed" music deal, and be perfectly satisfied with my decision would be if, for example I had a friend who purchased a CD that I had also purchased, and mine got smashed or whatever. I wouldn't think bad about burning a copy of his. What do you think about that, Xena Dee Dee?

[Just Some Dude]

As far as file sharing apps, I avoid them altogether. There are better ways to obtain mp3 back-ups, and even for those going for illegal downloads, so it's a waste of space anyways (and very easily room to let in spyware and whatnot). No need to bother with them.

[dizzle]

I believe you. I didn't think you were being judgemental at all. I actually never really thought about point #2 as I should have. :duh:

I guess the only way I could now view the "borrowed" music deal, and be perfectly satisfied with my decision would be if, for example I had a friend who purchased a CD that I had also purchased, and mine got smashed or whatever. I wouldn't think bad about burning a copy of his. What do you think about that, Xena Dee Dee?

Probably technically illegal, but I wouldn't have a problem with that. The problem with using those other sites is that even if you had paid for your own copy in the past and something happened to it, it is perpetuating a culture and practice where most people are simply pirating music. When I lost my season one 24 DVDs I almost said, forget it, I am going to download season one from bit-torrent, I already bought it. But I just couldn't do it. I bought another copy. Then of course I found my old one. But then I gave it to Cir, so it all worked out well and I got to give a gift to a friend.

[Timothy Leary]

If it's a copy of an episode as it was aired on TV, how's that any different than recording it to a tape and sharing it?

[dizzle]

Just because something is aired doesn't give others redistribution rights. Second, the items on bittorrent are ripped from DVDs for higher quality

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I do agree with the principle, DDW, but now its actually really common for TV eps on bit torrent to be recorded from hdTV.

But it's still illegal, of course. Most people don't realise it, but recording a movie that is broadcast on TV and keeping it is illegal, and it's for that exact reason that the above practice is illegal.

[dizzle]

I do agree with the principle, DDW, but now its actually really common for TV eps on bit torrent to be recorded from hdTV.

The ones I was interested in said "ripped from DVD" so....

But it's still illegal, of course. Most people don't realise it, but recording a movie that is broadcast on TV and keeping it is illegal, and it's for that exact reason that the above practice is illegal.

Just because something is commonplace in one area doesn't mean we should redistribute....

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

The ones I was interested in said "ripped from DVD" so....OK, just saying, recorded from hdTV is common too.
Just because something is commonplace in one area doesn't mean we should redistribute....
I wasn't really talking about redistribution in my post, although that's true as well. I was saying that having a recording of an episode or movie that you (or a friend, or anyone else) recorded is in and of itself, illegal. A lot of people don't realise it, but having a cupboard full of videotapes of episodes or movies that have been taped from television is illegal. They should not have them, they should destroy them. I'm not saying that since it's common, it's alright, so getting them from another source is alright too. I'm saying it's all illegal, and people should stop drawing the comparison between bit torrent and recording shows from TV. it doesn't help their case, because while I agree that there's a strong similarity, keeping stuff that you've taped from TV is illegal, so they cannot appeal to it for a reason to accept downloaded episodes.

[dizzle]

I do have stuff I recorded - like my disaster shows. :bawl:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I do have stuff I recorded - like my disaster shows. :bawl:
It's alright... I don't always live by my own standards either.......






















(said partly in jest and partly in love.... chill!)

[A-Man]

I do agree with the principle, DDW, but now its actually really common for TV eps on bit torrent to be recorded from hdTV.

But it's still illegal, of course. Most people don't realise it, but recording a movie that is broadcast on TV and keeping it is illegal, and it's for that exact reason that the above practice is illegal.

No, it's not.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=464&page=417

Various court cases have determined that personal use copying of broadcast material qualify as "fair use" under US copyright law as they do not harm the market. The main determining court case for this was in the US Supreme Court; Sony Corporation vs. Universal City Studios 464 U.S. 417 (1984). Text of the decision can be found in the linky above. And it's a long painful linky too.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

No, it's not.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=464&page=417

Various court cases have determined that personal use copying of broadcast material qualify as "fair use" under US copyright law as they do not harm the market. The main determining court case for this was in the US Supreme Court; Sony Corporation vs. Universal City Studios 464 U.S. 417 (1984). Text of the decision can be found in the linky above. And it's a long painful linky too.
In New Zealand it is illegal, as the broadcast does not confer the right to the content "on demand," and people are allowed to record broadcast and copyrighted programs only to watch them at another time if they are unable to watch them at the time of broadcast.

For what it's worth, I think the copyright holders were correct, and the court was wrong. It's like getting a book friom the library, and on the grounds that it entered your home anyway, scanning the whole thing and keeping a copy.

FWIW, here's a good summary of NZ law on the subject. (http://www.consumer.org.nz/topic.asp?category=Legal%20Rights&subcategory=Travel%20%26%20entertainment&docid=1800&topic=Copyright%20law&title=Your%20rights%20explained&contenttype=summary&bhcp=1)The first question, about making backup copies, is about to change as the law catches up with portable devices, so bear than in mind.

[dizzle]

Check out this terrible precedent in Japan (and get a chuckle out of the horribly stilted translation by google)

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mainichi-msn.co.jp%2Ftoday%2Fnews%2F20070526k0000m040090000c.html&langpair=ja%7Cen&hl=en&safe=off&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

What troubles me is this: The poll asks if it is OK for a Christian to do something, and the largest group said yes.

It's a fact, admitted by all who have looked into it, that the said act is illegal.

This means that the largest group in the poll said that it's OK to do something illegal, as long as you don't make money doing so.

Is this a fair summary?

[4given4life]

It's alright... I don't always live by my own standards either.......






















(said partly in jest and partly in love.... chill!)Jack, I fully agree with this statement. I believe Man can exceed his own standards but never, left to himself, can he attain God's standard of righteousness.

[A-Man]

Probably technically illegal, but I wouldn't have a problem with that. The problem with using those other sites is that even if you had paid for your own copy in the past and something happened to it, it is perpetuating a culture and practice where most people are simply pirating music. When I lost my season one 24 DVDs I almost said, forget it, I am going to download season one from bit-torrent, I already bought it. But I just couldn't do it. I bought another copy. Then of course I found my old one. But then I gave it to Cir, so it all worked out well and I got to give a gift to a friend.

I bolded part of your paragraph because I think that you nailed it perfectly.

[4given4life]

I bolded part of your paragraph because I think that you nailed it perfectly.I would disagree with most of what Xena has said. As I don't believe one should base things on cultural distinctions.

[A-Man]

I would disagree with most of what Xena has said. As I don't believe one should base things on cultural distinctions.

That's not what she's saying.

[4given4life]

That's not what she's saying.Was the word culture not bolded when you bolded it? Plus I was generalizing too. I was also stating facts about Christianity that people don't know. Adhering to a cultural norm is foreign to the Christian mindset.

[dizzle]

I really wish you would pay attention to what people are saying. Do you understand that the word "culture" has many meanings - in the way it was used in my sentence, it was used to mean to promote a practice, policy, or mindset. You seem to be quite the anti-nominian.

[4given4life]

I really wish you would pay attention to what people are saying. Do you understand that the word "culture" has many meanings - in the way it was used in my sentence, it was used to mean to promote a practice, policy, or mindset. You seem to be quite the anti-nominian.Yes I understand the many different ways the word culture is used. Do you mean anti-nomian? You might be right about that, I do believe the ten commandments are abolished and only the fourth isn't carried through the new covenant. The things I asked you dealt with the spiritual aspect of the law. The spirit speaks better things than the law does.

[timspong]

I personally have a problem with the bible being copyrighted. That is the trouble when it is produced by secular organizations where profit is the most important factor.

That is yet another reason why I love the ESV. It is produced by a non-profit christian organization and has very limited copyright restrictions.

BTW modern technology pretty much makes copyright infringement a joke. The industry needs to come up with something rather than to rely on the morals of the individual and make criminals out of all but the most pious. People just don't understand the issues involved and don't really care.

I used to own a recording studio in the US and just about any record company & recording studio has piles and piles of illegally copied material. Can anyone say hypocritical?

[4given4life]

I personally have a problem with the bible being copyrighted. That is the trouble when it is produced by secular organizations where profit is the most important factor.

That is yet another reason why I love the ESV. It is produced by a non-profit christian organization and has very limited copyright restrictions.

BTW modern technology pretty much makes copyright infringement a joke. The industry needs to come up with something rather than to rely on the morals of the individual and make criminals out of all but the most pious. People just don't understand the issues involved and don't really care.

I used to own a recording studio in the US and just about any record company & recording studio has piles and piles of illegally copied material. Can anyone say hypocritical?Just for your general knowledge only the 1611 Authorized King James didn't have a copyright on it. My preference has always been the 1611 Authorized King James version, though I don't personally own one yet, but I do know a lot about them. I also like the language of the 1611 Authorized King James version of the Holy Bible. As it is the King James bible that most skeptics and atheists use to say there's contradictions in the bible. My stance on the scriptures is based upon inerrancy. I have had access to various translations online as well as looking at the King James version of the bible. If needed I can start a separate thread on the law and the gospel and whether Christians are still under the law. It's a very lengthy subject though. Yet I do have the time to do it. I will even discuss whether Jesus was obedient to the law or not. Many of the websites I've checked are divisive on the issue. So I believe I was put here to set the record straight on several issues. The Sabbath discussion being one of those divisive issues. Now the one in defense of the Sabbath ruthrush is a Judaizer. She's already admitted to being Messianic Jew. Messianic Jews are for keeping the sabbath and keeping Mosaic laws. They're like Seventh-day adventists who believe that there's two separate laws and not one like the bible says. We as Christians are warned about Judaizers they will try to put a yoke around your neck that even the fathers couldn't bear. Trying to obtain salvation by the law will not aid the Jew. Did Peter require the new converts to Christianity to become Jews in order to be saved? No. None of the apostles or disciples required obedience to Jewish law as a means of salvation.

[A-Man]

Just for your general knowledge only the 1611 Authorized King James didn't have a copyright on it. My preference has always been the 1611 Authorized King James version, though I don't personally own one yet, but I do know a lot about them. I also like the language of the 1611 Authorized King James version of the Holy Bible. As it is the King James bible that most skeptics and atheists use to say there's contradictions in the bible. My stance on the scriptures is based upon inerrancy. I have had access to various translations online as well as looking at the King James version of the bible. If needed I can start a separate thread on the law and the gospel and whether Christians are still under the law. It's a very lengthy subject though. Yet I do have the time to do it. I will even discuss whether Jesus was obedient to the law or not. Many of the websites I've checked are divisive on the issue. So I believe I was put here to set the record straight on several issues. The Sabbath discussion being one of those divisive issues. Now the one in defense of the Sabbath ruthrush is a Judaizer. She's already admitted to being Messianic Jew. Messianic Jews are for keeping the sabbath and keeping Mosaic laws. They're like Seventh-day adventists who believe that there's two separate laws and not one like the bible says. We as Christians are warned about Judaizers they will try to put a yoke around your neck that even the fathers couldn't bear. Trying to obtain salvation by the law will not aid the Jew. Did Peter require the new converts to Christianity to become Jews in order to be saved? No. None of the apostles or disciples required obedience to Jewish law as a means of salvation.

Start it. Looking forward to engaging you. We prolIy agree more than we disagree. I don't think all Messianic Jews are for keeping the Mosiac Law.

[con_sumatum]

By law, it is allowed, but within strict parameters; ethically a Christian is not and should not feel guilty--the point is as long as one does Not then attempt to cash in and make money on downloaded material

Not under the law is a very generic Christian view of this: Christians are Not under the Mosaic Old Covenant Law but under the NEW--however, very few have a solid grasp of this concept and so have no idea how to explain it............

[con_sumatum]

The new covenant in no shape or manner advocates breaking the law; in fact, it clearly states to give Unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to obey the powers that be.....Not being under law means that a Christian is Not under the penalty of the Old Mosaic Covenant and is Not subject to its laws, but a Christian is under the New Covenant and its laws

[JackC]

Greetings all.

I perused through this thread and what came to mind, I see is hardly mentioned.

So if I might share another perspective...

If we look at what Jesus said regarding obeying the laws of the land, we might find insight into a higher perspective.


24 When they had come to Capernaum, those who received the temple tax came to Peter and said, “Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax?”
25 He said, “Yes.”
And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?”
26 Peter said to Him, “From strangers.”
Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free. 27 Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a piece of money; take that and give it to them for Me and you.”


Jesus clearly says here that the law of the temple regarding temple tax does not apply to the sons of God, who are free, yet he advises to obey the law so as to not offend.

This rings true in his words Give to Caesar what is Caesar's.

Children of God, heirs to the Kingdom, already own everything that is in Creation. There are no boundaries between what is yours and what is mine.

Such concepts and ideas as rights of ownership, even of the results of our personal efforts, are fallen and do not exist in the Kingdom where the Law of Love is supreme.

Where the Law of Love rules, all that is created or results from any efforts is done so out of Love, freely given to all, and use of what has been created is also done out of Love, and not greed or selfish desire or fear.

Here in this world, where human desire and fear are king - and not love - we have a whole slew of laws to protect such things as right of ownership. Those though, who operate under the Law of Love have a difficult time adhering to, much less comprehending, such laws.

Take this for example:

23 Now it happened that He went through the grainfields on the Sabbath; and as they went His disciples began to pluck the heads of grain. 24 And the Pharisees said to Him, “Look, why do they do what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”
25 But He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and hungry, he and those with him: 26 how he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the showbread, which is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and also gave some to those who were with him?”
27 And He said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28 Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath.”

God is Love, and Love is the Lord of all, even laws made by man.

I personally have no problem with bittorrents or with copying cds or dvds, when the intention is out of Love and not out of selfish desire or fear.

For example, I have friends who cannot afford dvds for their children, and so I gladly copy (and even rent to copy) dvds for them to watch.

I also have poor friends around the world, who cannot afford, nor even find, some music and movies - which I feel would be soothing for their souls - in their locale, so I freely copy mine and send them to them.

As Paul says, when we operate under the Law of Love, it is our conscience that rules, not manmade laws.

Manmade laws are for those still bound by their own desires and fears.

As Jesus offers though, sometimes we have to act in accordance with manmade laws, so as not to offend (eg suffer the consequences at the hand of the law, when there would be no benefit to others.)

Again, Love (our conscience) must decide what is the best course of action in this fallen world.

And a side regarding guilt - it is not God, nor Love, nor even our conscience that makes us feel guilty. While our conscience will guide us into the best thought or action, Satan is the accuser. Satan is the one making us feel guilty over past thoughts and actions.

Love always looks forward, in the now.

What is the best course of action, what is the most Loving thing to do, in the now?




Jack

[dizzle]

Since when do people "need" DVDs or music? Do you also shoplift from the grocery store to feed the homeless? Do you have enough money to buy your friends DVDs or CDs? Then buy them.

The justifications in this thread by some people are truly amazing to me. Heck, I am not saying I obey this, nor do most of the people I know, but at least I don't kid myself that it is right. I know I suck at obedience at times, but heck, I don't call disobedience obedience.

[A-Man]

By law, it is allowed, but within strict parameters; ethically a Christian is not and should not feel guilty--the point is as long as one does Not then attempt to cash in and make money on downloaded material


Hi CS.

To which laws are you referring? If you didn't pay for it, it's stealing. Plain and simple. Or are you speaking of something else?

[JackC]

Since when do people "need" DVDs or music? Do you also shoplift from the grocery store to feed the homeless? Do you have enough money to buy your friends DVDs or CDs? Then buy them.

The justifications in this thread by some people are truly amazing to me. Heck, I am not saying I obey this, nor do most of the people I know, but at least I don't kid myself that it is right. I know I suck at obedience at times, but heck, I don't call disobedience obedience.


The madness of this world truly amazes me...

The answers to all these questions are found in Love.

Jesus 'shoplifted' to feed his hungry disciples.

And I will gladly follow in his footsteps and shoplift, break traffic laws, or whatever, when a Higher Law calls for it.

Just last week, I brought an otherwise illegal medication over the border for a sick friend.

Maybe they don't really need it, maybe they do. I felt compelled by Love to help though.

And maybe Jesus didn't really need his feet anointed with oil, but this world certainly needs more of such acts of selfless Love. And so I gladly copy dvds and cds for those who otherwise would not have them.

What parent does not need to have moments of fun with their children, and what children do not need these moments as well, such as those found in watching movies? Or better, what parent does not need the break that comes when their children are safe watching fun and inspirational movies?

Love makes everything so simple, so easy.

It is fear that complicates.

This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends. You are My friends if you do whatever I command you.



Jack

[A-Man]

Jesus 'shoplifted' to feed his hungry disciples.




Source??

[dizzle]

The madness of this world truly amazes me...

The answers to all these questions are found in Love.

Jesus 'shoplifted' to feed his hungry disciples.

And I will gladly follow in his footsteps and shoplift, break traffic laws, or whatever, when a Higher Law calls for it.

Just last week, I brought an otherwise illegal medication over the border for a sick friend.

Maybe they don't really need it, maybe they do. I felt compelled by Love to help though.

And maybe Jesus didn't really need his feet anointed with oil, but this world certainly needs more of such acts of selfless Love. And so I gladly copy dvds and cds for those who otherwise would not have them.

What parent does not need to have moments of fun with their children, and what children do not need these moments as well, such as those found in watching movies? Or better, what parent does not need the break that comes when their children are safe watching fun and inspirational movies?

Love makes everything so simple, so easy.

It is fear that complicates.

This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends. You are My friends if you do whatever I command you.



Jack

Dude, you are seriously whacked. Please stay away from my house as we don't like thieves very much.

[JackC]

Source??


1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!”
3 But He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: 4 how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? 6 Yet I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple. 7 But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

As previously shared.

Gleening and other limitations on the rights of ownership of others, in order to care for the needy, were considered legal under Judaic law.

If I 'gleened' another's property under today's law, I would be guilty of shoplifting, trespassing, loitering, copyright infringement, etc, etc.

Can anyone here see how in this world which is ruled by the Father of lies, greed, fear, and self protection win out over common decency to our fellow man?

Fear rules, not Love.

29 To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either. 30 Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back. 31 And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.




Jack

[JackC]

Dude, you are seriously whacked. Please stay away from my house as we don't like thieves very much.

27 “But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you. 29 To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either. 30 Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back. 31 And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.
32 “But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. 35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. 36 Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful.

[A-Man]

As previously shared.

Gleening and other limitations on the rights of ownership of others, in order to care for the needy, were considered legal under Judaic law.

I'd phrase it differently, but correct.

If I 'gleened' another's property under today's law, I would be guilty of shoplifting, trespassing, loitering, copyright infringement, etc, etc.

Not always, many farms today have a section of land that can be "gleened", it's up to the landowner.

First you said Jesus "shoplifted". Shoplifting is a discription of criminal activity, and always has been, and still is, illegal. What Jesus did was "gleen", which you just correctly stated was legal!

What are you trying to say??

[dizzle]

Again stay away from my house since you are a confessed thief.

[JackC]

I'd phrase it differently, but correct.



Not always, many farms today have a section of land that can be "gleened", it's up to the landowner.

First you said Jesus "shoplifted". Shoplifting is a discription of criminal activity, and always has been, and still is, illegal. What Jesus did was "gleen", which you just correctly stated was legal!

What are you trying to say??

Two things...

One, as you point out, gleening was at one time considered a legal activity, related to rights of ownership. But society has changed now, because of fear and greed, so that taking care of one another takes a second to taking care of 'personal rights'.

And second, often what Jesus did was considered illegal by the authorities in power.

But that did not stop him from acting out of Love.



Jack

[Ninjalan]

Pirating data is no more stealing than using McDonald's Big-Mac recipe to make your own burger.

The issue here is not that copying data is stealing, because it clearly is not. The issue is that copying data that one has not paid for is illegal. I firmly believe that it is illegal, not because it is immoral, but because folks with way too much money want to maximize their bottom line.

Over time I've come to the conclusion, however, that the law is the law. It would be a terrible testimony for Christ if I were ever arrested for pirating data, for example, even if I do feel the illegality of it is based on questionable motives.

[dizzle]

Okay here is a question. First some background - I have a "spirit of the law" mentality, not saying that is right, just saying where my head is at. Such a mentality is reflected in the way the rules are interpreted here at TWeb and why I hate legalists.

So now, here is my question. I am a Napster subscriber and have been for several years, having hundreds of songs in my Napster collection. I do not "own" these songs, that is not how Napster works. For those of you who don't know, the Napster subscription has unlimited downloads to your lists, but it is like "renting" them. So for $10 bucks a month you have access to potentially thousands upon thousands of songs, but if you cancel your subscription, you no longer have any right to play them. For an extra $5 a month, you pay for the right to place them on a compatible (this will be a key issue) portable player. I pay the extra $5 a month and have for several years.

So here is my issue. I am getting a new player that is not compatible with Napster. I want to keep my Napster subscription for I like the service and have been a faithful customer, but my player will not play with it.

There are programs out there that copy your Napster songs and save them on your hard drive so that you may do what you want with them. You are not supposed to do that, you are not paying for that. What most people use those programs for is to pay for a month of Napster, grab thousands of songs, and get them to own. Without a doubt, I think that is definitely wrong.

However, this is what I am not sure is wrong. It is definitely against the rules of Napster, and maybe in that, it is then immoral, but I don't see it as wrong in applying the spirit of the law - the spirit being that you don't own these songs, you have limited rights to use (i.e. you can have them on three computers with Napster and on one portable player). Here is what I don't think is wrong necessarily and what I am contemplating - using such a program to be able to put my Napster songs on my portable player for as long as I remain a subscriber. And if I cancel my subscription to delete all those songs. I pay for the right to put them on one portable player, but Napster is not compatible with my player of choice.I don't see how this at all violates the spirit and purpose of the agreement - though it absolutely violates the letter. And it does have the element of supporting (though using a program that nearly everyone would use to steal rights) the culture of piracy, even if one is not engaging in piracy.

What do you guys think?

Jack, I am going to be back to deal with your pride and christianese which calls evil good and good evil.

PS: The illegality of such a program is not even clear. In fact, the major magazine PCWorld ran an article on this issue, advertising these programs and telling people how to use them - which is how I was even aware they existed. PCW does not advertise or advocate things which are clearly illegal. Apparently the author consulted with some legal professionals and determined it was ambiguous. It is clearly against Napster's end-user-agreement, but I guess the question is if such an agreement is enforceable.

[dizzle]

Pirating data is no more stealing than using McDonald's Big-Mac recipe to make your own burger.

If the recipe is patented, it is stealing. Now if you are doing a knock-off, such as Top Secret Recipes, which are clones, that is fine under the law.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Okay here is a question. First some background - I have a "spirit of the law" mentality, not saying that is right, just saying where my head is at. Such a mentality is reflected in the way the rules are interpreted here at TWeb and why I hate legalists.You hate Theonomists? :bawl: :wink:
So now, here is my question. I am a Napster subscriber and have been for several years, having hundreds of songs in my Napster collection. I do not "own" these songs, that is not how Napster works. For those of you who don't know, the Napster subscription has unlimited downloads to your lists, but it is like "renting" them. So for $10 bucks a month you have access to potentially thousands upon thousands of songs, but if you cancel your subscription, you no longer have any right to play them. For an extra $5 a month, you pay for the right to place them on a compatible (this will be a key issue) portable player. I pay the extra $5 a month and have for several years.

So here is my issue. I am getting a new player that is not compatible with Napster. I want to keep my Napster subscription for I like the service and have been a faithful customer, but my player will not play with it.

There are programs out there that copy your Napster songs and save them on your hard drive so that you may do what you want with them. You are not supposed to do that, you are not paying for that. What most people use those programs for is to pay for a month of Napster, grab thousands of songs, and get them to own. Without a doubt, I think that is definitely wrong.

However, this is what I am not sure is wrong. It is definitely against the rules of Napster, and maybe in that, it is then immoral, but I don't see it as wrong in applying the spirit of the law - the spirit being that you don't own these songs, you have limited rights to use (i.e. you can have them on three computers with Napster and on one portable player). Here is what I don't think is wrong necessarily and what I am contemplating - using such a program to be able to put my Napster songs on my portable player for as long as I remain a subscriber. And if I cancel my subscription to delete all those songs. I pay for the right to put them on one portable player, but Napster is not compatible with my player of choice.I don't see how this at all violates the spirit and purpose of the agreement - though it absolutely violates the letter. And it does have the element of supporting (though using a program that nearly everyone would use to steal rights) the culture of piracy, even if one is not engaging in piracy.

What do you guys think?I say that it should be legal. But it's not, as far as I know. However, I couldn't imagine thinking badly of anyone for doing it, and I think the most troubling thing to naptster is that your device won't work with naptster.

Why doesn't it, btw?

[dizzle]

I have no idea why it doesn't - I think a format issue. The problem would be I think if I kept those files if I ever cancel my Napster subscription, and I won't do that.