Burning CD's

[liafailrock]

Homeskillet:

Somehow I had the feeling you wouldn't get my point.

For the rest, I have the hard disk, video tape, picture, and personal diary police coming after you all right now. How dare you turn up the radio for others to hear or let a friend read your diary that may have a copyrighted quote in it. You will cheat the author out of his or her living!

 

[Homeskillet]

Homeskillet:

Somehow I had the feeling you wouldn't get my point.

For the rest, I have the hard disk, video tape, picture, and personal diary police coming after you all right now. How dare you turn up the radio for others to hear or let a friend read your diary that may have a copyrighted quote in it. You will cheat the author out of his or her living!

:roll: You know, that's not what I'm saying.

And I'm not an idiot. I know what you were "trying" to say with your barn scenario, but it was irrelevant to our discussion.

 

[Vic C.]

Scofield...
Is it a sin if your country says it's legal?

Rogue 9...
A sin? Well, burning CDs itself is not wrong or immoral. Its the information on them. If you do not have the owner's permission to copy his material and have not been granted permission to copy or purchased the data, then it is theft. But the question is too general for me to vote on as it is.

Homeskillet
and the can of worms has officially been opened....

I vote yes, and I've not a lot of time right now to state why, but in my opinion, it is a sin.....just take the basic definition of stealing..."To take (the property of another) without right or permission"....unless the artist has given their consent, it's stealing. (IMO)

More to follow, when time allows.

Rogue 9
But burning CDs in and of itself is not immoral. If you're making copies of your own text documents, or moving your own digital pictures, or anything of that nature, its not theft, not immoral, not sin, and yet its burning CDs. The question is too broad.

Homeskillet
True....I was assuming (I know, shame on me ) that he was referring to music that you yourself did not create based on where he said.

Wow. : Five pages worth of wriggling worms! LOL Yes, Rouge, the original question was not defined at all, as Josie stated. But after a few posts, it was assumed Sco was referring to music CD's. Sorry people, I am sitting here reading all this and am LMBO! This brings me back to a time in the 80's when the Recording industry wanted the Feds to step in and impose a add'l. sales tax on blank cassettes and video tapes. They claimed lost revenues due to illegal copying of copyrighted material. But there was a provision in the copyright laws allowing one to make a copy of said material for personal use. Like I often say...follow the money trail!

Which reminds me...I paid $14.99 for my first CD in 1987. What is the average price today in like, K-Mart or WalMart? Close to the same. Since we all know it doesn't cost nearly as much to press out a CD now as it did back in 1987, who is really cashing in? Thrst me...not the Artists. Though they MAY be getting a slightly larger piece of the pie, they still rely on touring to make money. Does anyone want to discuss the price of a ticket to a secular concert these days? In the 70's, I used to pay $8.50 for prime seating. Now you can barely get a hot dog and soda for the same amount. :x

 

[liafailrock]

Vicjr:

Then again, I suppose there would not have been 5 pages of this heated debate had not Leviathan, ummm, I mean the Riaa defined it as 'wrong' or in Christian jargon 'sin', I'm sure most of us would not even given any form of CD burning a second thought, as with photocopies, recordings and whatnot.

That was the point of my earlier example about our barn--- these type of people are drumming up so-called copyright issues where there are none and witch-hunting those who have not even transgressed.

I'll make it simple--- if one is an artist painting pictures, a writer, a musician (like my kid) , or whatever, then they can get paid for live performances, royalies on the radio, and any substancial material one sells (e.g. CD's). Trust me, there will always be people who will buy--- but once it's in my domain (my home's airwaves) it then becomes a privacy issue and it is released to me--- that's my turf. Sad is the day when someone tries to tell me I can't turn on a recorder in my own home, or put data on my own computer. This way, they earn their living, and we can copy--- that's the Renaissance ideology where no stifling of any expression leads to a flourishing society, ultimately to one as we (are supposed to have) with freedom of speech and expression, and not only to a few who will cry out that one's expression is a "derivative" of their work and thus try to silence them.

 

[Bryan]

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"?

If I bought a copy of a set of prints that you had previously made, then I have no rights, but if I commissioned you to do the work for me, then I own the copyright on the work. It's called work made for hire.

 

[Homeskillet]

It's obvious this discussion is going nowhere. I guess you either believe it is or you don't. I guess for me it seems a little more clear cut than it does for others.

I love music and I believe in supporting the artists. Yes, by doing so I am also supporting the big, bad, scarey RIAA....so? At least I know the artists are being supported in the process.

Like I have said before, I'll be glad when the RIAA and artists and consumers all come to some sort of concession which allows us the access to the music we want for more reasonable price and still allows them to be paid as they are entitled. Heck, I'll be happy when the day comes where the RIAA no longer exists....no labels necessary.

Until then, I'll continue doing what I've been doing.

 

[manofgod247]

i believe that it is not a sin because you're not making money off of it. i heard that if you make money off of something that's not yours than it is illegal but i don't think it is a sin if you're doing it for your own personal use.