Burning CD's

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by JM, Jan 13, 2004.

?

Well?

  1. yes

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. no

    100.0%
  3. yes, and I'm not a Christian

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. no, and I'm not a Christian

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. it's a gray area

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Nikki

    Nikki Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2003
    Messages:
    1,587
    Christian:
    Yes
    I almost died years ago when I took something with Ephedra in it. I didn't take it for dieting. I had taken it for something else. It speed up my heartbeat so fast that I literally couldn't breathe. In some people...I'm not saying all...but in some, it speeds up the heartbeat so fast that the heart eventually gets worn out and stops.
     
  2. Bryan

    Bryan Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    230
    Location:
    MB
    Christian:
    Yes
    No. in both cases, the artist only got paid once for the original. Same deal.
     
  3. Homeskillet

    Homeskillet Guest

    Um, yeah I guess I am...But, since this thread hit 3 pages in less than 24 hours, I'd guess I'm not the only one. :lol:

    Truth is, here in the USA it is illegal, so there's no question it's a sin here for that reason alone. (Check out http://www.riaa.org and http://www.bsa.org if you want more info on the legalities)But. the original intent of this thread (I think) was to discuss whether or not it is a SIN to burn a cd even if the government says it's legal to do so. There is a difference between downloading music and burning a cd. So, I'll assume for the moment that I live in a country where it is perfectly legal to burn copies of cds. (and I'm not talking about cds you yourself have made, but cds with copyrights on them created by someone else for the sole purpose of making a profit.)

    So, say I buy a cd...oh let's say it's Steven Curtis Chapman's latest for 17.99. Since it's legal to do so, I take it home and proceed to burn copies. I burn 650 copies so that I can distribute one to every person in my church for free, just because I'm a nice gal. Tell me how that is moral? Yes, it may be legal.....and no I'm not making any money off of it...BUT neither is Steven Curtis Chapman...well, at least not all that he is ENTITLED to. The music that is on HIS cd that he SELLS is the intellectual and artistic property of HIM (and in most cases, the label as well)....so, when I copy it, for whatever reason, I am stealing it from him (and/or the label). Whether or not the govt agrees with me that it is stealing is irrelevant...stealing is stealing.

    I may not like the fact that cds are so high and the RIAA think they can just rule the recording industry, and I have problems with the whole situation because I feel the consumers do get the rotten end of the deal. But, just because something is unfair, doesn't make it ok to steal.

    I'll be glad, no, I'll be ECSTATIC when the artists and labels start to utilize the internet more than they do right now....but, until that happens, it's stealing. Ask (almost) any artist out there and they will tell you to please buy the album and not to accept a burnt copy. And IMO, if the artist (and label) themselves consider it stealing, then it IS stealing.....which is a sin.

    And technically the same applies for photocopying.....

    Several years ago, I tried taking a book to a local store similar to Kinkos because I needed multiple front and back copies of some pages and my copier at the time was too old and slow to have handled that kind of task.....they refused because the book was copyrighted....said the only way they would do it is if I were to tear out that "copyright page" at the beginning of the book....which I refused to do. (Taking the page out, doesn't nullify the copyright :roll: )

    Also, the same goes with photography...say you have your family pictures taken at a photography studio....you can't go have duplicates made at the photo lab, now can you? It has nothing to do with the paper that the picture is on, or the book that the material is in, or the cd that the music is on. It's about the music, photography, art, or whatever that an artist is trying to SELL, yet we think we are entitled to free copies of simply because the technology exists to do it.
     
  4. Homeskillet

    Homeskillet Guest

    Above I alluded to asking the artists themselves what they think, and here's just ONE example. I can provide more if you want. :biggrin

    Mark from Sanctus Real had this to say recently on the Sanctus Real Website......
     
  5. JM

    JM Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,818
    Location:
    Canada
    :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
    It's still legal in Canada and not sinful because we pay for it indirectly.
     
  6. Homeskillet

    Homeskillet Guest

    That's like saying I paid Steve for this TV that actually belongs to David...so it's ok since I "indirectly" paid for it. I'm sure David would consider it theft.
     
  7. cubedbee

    cubedbee Guest

    You misunderstand how the Canadian tax works. The Canadian government charges a levy on all blank media and certain media players. This levy is collected from the producers of the products, and so is automatically built into the price you are paying at the store. Once the gov has all the money, it then redistributes this money to musical artists based on sales and radio play. So every musiciain gets a proportional amount of money that they deserve. The indirectness of the payment refers to using the government as an intermediary and not to paying someone other than the owner.
     
  8. Homeskillet

    Homeskillet Guest

    My bad....being an American I just simply don't know how it all works in Canada....but I do have some questions about what you just said...

    You said they base how much to distribute and to whom based on sales and radio play...What sales do they base it on?
     
  9. liafailrock

    liafailrock Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    63
    I want to tell you all something. Law or not, as long as written word or music is out there, it has been and always will be able to be copied. (Just because it's against the law to do something does not make it sin to do it if the law is wrong--- if you disagree, do as Daniel did and go to the Lion's Den). We photocopy articles, in the old days we waited for our favorite song to come out over the radio and then recorded it. When VCR's came out, we recorded our favorite program that we missed because we were away. Now, it's computer file sharing--- the concept's no different. The whole bottom line with this RIAA stuff is this:

    1. The fat-@$$ heads are losing their 7-9 digit salary jobs a year because they are feeling the economic pinch we "5-digit" guys were feeling for 20-some years. (It's always the 'little guy's' fault)
    2. Along that line, it is a threat to the likes of the RIAA (that acts like some of the antics of the government) for the "common guy" to get too much power, control, or knowledge on the Internet that occurred in the past few years. They rather the masses be "dumbed down" a little. I honestly feel this is a first step to severely limit and censure the Internet like in China.

    They just want to rape and nose in on your hard drive. If I made similar claims against that behemoth the way they did to the common guy recently, I'm sure I'd be laughed to scorn and the case dismissed without evidence because I do not have the money. But they could do the same with even less evidence in my opinion. Make no mistake, it's no one's business what one has on their hard drive any more than it's anyone's business regarding recordings, or even quotes from a (copyrighted) book in one's personal diary.

    Now for any of you who may even have an inkling yet towards the side of the corrupt and mentally ill RIAA, have you considered lately what they have been doing by playing "police" with on-the-street raids? Failing to win the battle of the wits ( and for power and money) in court, they now take the law into their own hands by posing police-like raids. The link is below.

    If I may close on this note, I am NOT endorsing copying music and then transferring it to disk to make a sale or profit on someone else's work. The issue I have pertains to privacy, reasonable copies for personal use, and due process of the law. But as for the RIAA, how anti-constitutional and anti-American can these people get? It's scary.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/28/34835.html
     
  10. Homeskillet

    Homeskillet Guest

    I agree with a lot of your post....but, their corruption doesn't justify our sin. (Two wrongs don't make a right)

    Also, I'm more concerned with being "Christ-like" than I am being "American" or "Constitutional".
     
  11. cubedbee

    cubedbee Guest

    On a higher level, “Intellectual Property†is a man-made concept, and I do not believe that one can steal intellectual property. When theft is referred to in the Bible, it is referring to the theft of physical property. A defining attribute of property is that it is a rival good, which means only a limited number of people can use the good. If I take your car or your coat or your watch, I’ve deprived you of the use of your belongings. If I take a joke(a nonrival good) that you tell me and use it for my own, we both have a joke. It is common to use the word “steal†to refer to both of these scenarios, but from a Biblical perspective, I believe the first is stealing and the second is not. As has been pointed out, plagiarism was common in Biblical times, because it is not wrong to take someone else’s thought or ideas and use them yourself. Ideas intrinsically have no monetary value---it is the implementation of an idea that does. The only reason copyright infringement is wrong is because it is against the law, and as Christians we should obey our rulers.
     
  12. Homeskillet

    Homeskillet Guest

    Now, that ^ is a concept I had never considered before....I'm gonna chew on that one for a bit.
     
  13. saved

    saved Guest

    Actually everything that is against the law is sin if you violate it. The only exception is if the law is in conflect with God's law.
     
  14. Jack Lewis

    Jack Lewis Guest

    By that reasoning I should just send money to the artist whether I ever listen to the song or not. A purchased LP represents songs that have been paid for. The person who originally paid for them is transferring their ownership of those copies to me. The idea is that those copies will be listened to by a provate person, one at a time (one playing at a time). If the LP is on my shelf (not beoing played) and I'm listening to the same song on my computer, the artist has received his earnings for that instance of that song.
     
  15. Nikki

    Nikki Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2003
    Messages:
    1,587
    Christian:
    Yes
    Yeah, I ran into that problem when I tried to get copies of a family portrait. The back had a copyright on them. Now, I think that is stupid because WE are the ones on that paper!!!
     
  16. liafailrock

    liafailrock Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    63
    Homeskillet:

    You stated:

    I agree with a lot of your post....but, their corruption doesn't justify our sin. (Two wrongs don't make a right)

    Also, I'm more concerned with being "Christ-like" than I am being "American" or "Constitutional".


    That's the whole problem, I do not believe it's sin. If it was, then do you realize how many "copyright" laws you and everyone else break daily? What do we need here? A personal diary (or hard drive) police?

    This is just another excuse for some big guys to try to silence people and bar freedom of speech under the so-called guise of copyright (and it benefits their already overstuffed wallet). This generation is so corrupt it twists the original intent of it so that "wrong" is called "right" and vice versa.
     
  17. liafailrock

    liafailrock Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    63
    SillyNikki:

    I had to chuckle when I saw your post. I couldn't agree with you more. Nearby our house we have a picturesque barn and country setting in the family here. On several occasions I saw artists painting the barn (without our permission) or taking pictures. I'd love to take an EXACT picture of the same barn, post it on the Internet, and then watch some dumb-arse claim copyright infringement on OUR BARN. I'd adjust his asteroids faster than he could clean 'em.

    The rest of you may think I'm being ridiculous here, but mark my words, that's EXACTLY what is happening all around us now with this so-called copyright mania.
     
  18. Rogue 9

    Rogue 9 Guest

    Yes, but in the case of burning a copy and giving it to someone else instead of selling the original is that you have obviated the need he would otherwise have to buy his own copy. You both have one, and the artist was only paid for the first. When selling a used recording, you have one paid for copy when you start. When the transaction is finished you have no copy of the recording. If you want one, you'll have to buy another copy. And that's the money that the artist is being cheated out of; if someone gets their work for free then they will not also buy the recording.
     
  19. Mr Shadrack

    Mr Shadrack Guest

    I am a Muscian who performs other peoples work in public places for profitable gain,but i pay to the performing rights to keep with in the law. If you purchase a work (in any media) then you can back it up (copy) for yourself so long as it is not used for your profitable or non-profitable gain.

    People "split hairs " in order to ease their guilt. I think the best way is to keep with in the law and don't copy owt unless you have bought the original material and you are just backing it up for yourself.

    People know in their heart is something is wrong and bending or mis-interpreting the law won't save them on judgement day ....will it?

    To say that a law is wrong therefore i can break that law is Anarchy!!
    Shadders.
     
  20. Homeskillet

    Homeskillet Guest

    Yes, you are on the picture, but "you" aren't what the photographer is claiming to be his.....How do you think photographers can make a profit if they allow people to come in and get one picture taken and then go make copies of it themselves. Photographers would go out of business. You may claim, they are wrong to make it "all about the money" or whatever, but they are entitled to it. They are the ones who probably went to school or took some classes or spent years practicing...they are the ones with the artistic ability to make five runny nosed and wild kids look like angels all sweet and innocent.....If you could do that yourself, I'm guessing you wouldn't need to go to a professional in the first place...I know I wouldn't. When you walk out of the studio, pictures in hand, you haven't just bought some paper with YOU on it...you've bought someone else's rendering of you.

    I draw houses for a living (drafter) and even though I am drawing your house, you can't just go get copies made.

    How is that "stupid"?

    I know ^^^ way up there I said that I was gonna think a bit about whether or not "artistic" and "intellectual" property could be stolen.....and I still think it can be. It may be man made, and it may be a new concept, but that doesn't mean it isn't true, or can't happen.

    lilfrailrock.....your hypothetical situation is truly that..hypothetical, but I'll bite. You are right in that they wouldn't have a case....you would have done nothing wrong. You took a picture. You copied nothing. What exactly was your point?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page