Music Piracy: Okay or not?

AdamAPHC · 08-06-2009, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billgamesh

How is downloading stealing? You take nothing from your neighbor. I mention this because there is a very big difference between taking something and copying it...

You're not stealing from the person you are downloading from. You are stealing from the record companies and the artists. Many people I talk to say they don't think it's wrong because the "evil record companies really own the music", but it's still the same as stealing a pack of gum from Wal-Mart.

The bible doesn't say "you shall not steal from your neighbor."

Guitar4God · 08-06-2009, 09:59 PM

all i want is one song .. yea, yea pay 99 cents. that will cause me unwanted emails. I like to see what are the offerings. If a video is on youtube, why is the download link not removed? Legal, maybe.

Demon_Hunter · 08-06-2009, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guitar4God

all i want is one song .. yea, yea pay 99 cents. that will cause me unwanted emails. I like to see what are the offerings. If a video is on youtube, why is the download link not removed? Legal, maybe.

I get 1 email from itunes after a week or so when I have made a purchase, and it clumps multiple purchases into one email, so I dont get floods of messages about buying 1 song, or a set of songs.

I dont see whats so horrible about that.

Folk_guy · 08-06-2009, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

It's a worse witness for a youth leader to worry about youth downloading music than worrying about, for instance, whether or not they're loving their neighbor in their high school and in their daily lives instead of contributing to marginalizing of certain outcast peers of theirs - as I was at one point. As someone who's so 'Missions Minded' I'm surprised this didn't occur to you, legalist.

Is it loving your neighbor to steal their intellectual property from them, so that they can't make a decent living with their music. If you like the music you should support the artist by paying for it. Call me a legalist, but I think it's morally wrong for someone to take something that belongs to someone else without paying them for it.

mulletman · 08-06-2009, 10:58 PM

My gut reaction is that if it's called "piracy," it's probably not okay. Just a guess.

niangelo · 08-06-2009, 11:17 PM

I can legally download all the music I want in Canada.

But it's unethical and immoral to me, to just download and not pay for something that I otherwise would.

On the other hand, If I buy a CD, rip it into mp3 format and put it on an mp3 player, that's illegal. If I want to make a copy of that song for a member of my worship team so they can learn it, that's also illegal.

Can you guess why I find copyright law archaic and inapplicable?

Demon_Hunter · 08-06-2009, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by niangelo

I can legally download all the music I want in Canada.

But it's unethical and immoral to me, to just download and not pay for something that I otherwise would.

On the other hand, If I buy a CD, rip it into mp3 format and put it on an mp3 player, that's illegal. If I want to make a copy of that song for a member of my worship team so they can learn it, that's also illegal.
Can you guess why I find copyright law archaic and inapplicable?

The music minister at my church is determined that even if it is more expensive to do things the legal way, he will do things that way. He believes that he as a christian has a responsibility to obey the law where it doesnt contradict the higher laws of God.

TunerSteve · 08-07-2009, 09:59 AM

I think many people don't feel convicted about d/l files without paying, because they reason that they are playing on the radio all the time, and you don't pay to listen to songs on the radio. In reality, there are arrangements with labels and broadcasters that pay the bill to allow you to listen. YOU might listen to the music without paying, but the artist/label/writers are all still paid.

It's also ironic that some feel there is no problem with gaining music in this fashion, but defend the right of music publishing companies and organizations like CCLI to collect fees for "pieces of paper" that contained lyrics or notes so we could worship God with these songs. If I photocopy additional copies of songs, that I'm not legally allowed to copy, I have violated the law. Would I have purchased the sheet music otherwise? What if I just memorized the song and then played it (with a performance license) and allowed another band member to view the sheetmusic? These artists/labels/bigbad record companies all have a right to profit from thier products, and unless the law changes, it is wrong.

bowstaff981 · 08-07-2009, 10:06 AM

The only problem I have with illegally downloading music is the fact that it is illegal. I enjoy the fact that the only people really losing money are the record companies. The amount of money that the artists make off of cd's is abysmal. In fact I have talked to many musicians that encourage people to illegally download because it is a more efficient system for their music to spread and be heard.

As much as I want to illegally download music though I avoid it. And just like Skeeter I enjoy being able to hold the actual cd.

**Role Modlin** · 08-07-2009, 10:27 AM

Personally...I think music ninjacy is much better.

**Role Modlin** · 08-07-2009, 10:30 AM

Seriously...I have used Limewire in the last year or two to find songs that were either out of print or impossible to find elsewhere. I use Rhapsody, iTunes and Amazon to download most of my music. Every now and then there will be CD that I actually want to purchase.

AlphaSigma · 08-07-2009, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leboman

Seriously...I have used Limewire in the last year or two to find songs that were either out of print or impossible to find elsewhere. I use Rhapsody, iTunes and Amazon to download most of my music. Every now and then there will be CD that I actually want to purchase.

Agreed. I was looking for a song, which is a remake of Marvin Gaye's "What's Going On?", which was impossible to find for download anywhere else. I checked.

missionsminded · 08-07-2009, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TunerSteve

I think many people don't feel convicted about d/l files without paying, because they reason that they are playing on the radio all the time, and you don't pay to listen to songs on the radio.

They play them on the radio to get u exposed to new music.

I also agree with the person who said that It is better to do things a little more expensive and legally (as long as it does not contradict the Higher Laws)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

As someone who's so 'Missions Minded' I'm surprised this didn't occur to you, legalist.

And ICTHUS, I do care about my students. I also care about the students all over the country. I just find this as something in today's law (which God calls us to obey, and even if we dont agree with the law makers, God placed them over us, so we should obey their laws as long as they do not contradict God's laws)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Romans 13:1

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed

not only do we need to follow the authorities, but the laws as well that the authorities have placed.

I do believe it's alright to download things when it's legal. such as I got a free download of Skillet's "Hero" song. but that's because I pre-ordered the CD.

I used to p2p share a lot. and when I did, I had no intention on ever buying the music. God placed a conviction within me about it, and now I buy and download (through legal means, not p2p sharing)

missionsminded · 08-07-2009, 02:14 PM

Also if you want to check out music, use pandora. I have found out about a lot of artist's through Pandora. and then went and bought their cd

Nate · 08-07-2009, 08:42 PM

The moral [and legal] argument against music downloading is not based on stealing physical property, but intellectual property / property rights.

Insomuch as property rights are a thing, you have "stolen" an author's rights to his property (namely, his work of authorship) when you copy it.

Seeing as it the rights inherent in a work of authorship / innovation (right to display a painting, perform a song, use a technology, etc) from which authors / inventors derive their income, infringement upon those rights is a serious moral [and legal] offense; even if you did not directly take money or property from them, you have disenfranchised them of a right that is theirs.

Indeed, in many political theories, the theft of outright property is only an extension of the disenfranchisement of property rights (the right to use or abandon), and not vice-versa.

Copyright is way older than copyright law. It is not an outdated concept, nor a frivolous one. The Constitution contains this little section, referring to the powers of the newly established Congress:

Article I, Section 8: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

The reason this "copyright clause" was put in was because they realized that a) the sciences and the arts are useful to society; b) anything useful will only be pursed insofar as it is also profitable.

In order that society should have the progress of science and the useful arts, it is necessary that certain rights be granted exclusively to authors, artists, inventors, etc, and not be impinged.

One right in that bundle of exclusive rights is necessarily the right to make copies of the work. It is difficult to secure the exclusive right of sale, for example, if everyone else can have copies.

That's why Napster went under... not because of copying, but because of distribution. You cannot control one (distribution) without controlling the other (copying), so you have to control both.

The moral case is that the right to profit from one's own art (through sale, copying, derivation, etc) is a bundle of exclusive rights (all of which must be present to be profitable) that the artist holds.

The taking away of those rights is what is accomplished, immorally, through the copying of a work of authorship before the "limited time" has elapsed wherein they may profit exclusively.

The analogy is not one of walking into a record store and pocketing an album, but of walking into an inventor's workshop and scrawling down a copy of his latest discovery or innovation.