Downloading music from the internet

[Sparkey]

I can't see the difference if it is given to me as a hard copy, or uploaded on to my computer. Either way, I haven't paid for it and received copyrighted stuff for free.

Of course, we could say that the music industry is a moral cesspit, having raked in fortunes over the years, by beguiling kids with low quality dross churned out by pretty (male and female) pop stars. Now, in today's digital age, they are not making anything like the same sort of gains.

But still, there's an issue there for me.

As I said, my church is adamant on the issue. It's stealing. End of. I'm not saying that those are necessarily my views.

I've no problem with those who advocate following the law. There is nothing wrong with driving 55 MPH in a posted 55 MPH zone. Still, there is a difference between not doing something negative and doing something positive. Teaching others to respect the law is acceptable. Manipulating the law so as to deprive the worker of their rightful wage is not. Charging customers beyond what is reasonable (I'm thinking computer software here) while denying the employee their share in the "intellectual property" creates wealth (for some). But does this mean we should become lawbreakers? No.

Again, this is stuff that people can learn while playing in the sandbox, no need for a Master's degree here.

 

[Eugene]

God's word would make a good dividing line! :chicken

When speaking of "Thou shall not steal", I have to admit that I have trouble deciding how far that rule goes. I mean.. all that a music file is, is a bunch of data comprised of 0's and 1's.

When we apply law to our lives we are subject to it. In Romans Chapter Thirteen we're told to obey those God put above us and Romans 13:5 says "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath (That is by those enforcing the law), but also for conscience sake."

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

James goes on to add "For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law." James 2:11.

Want to go further in the reach of the law? Matthew 5:27-29 "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. 29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee . ." I once dealt with a man in a mental institution that had allowed the law to stretch this far into his life.

Has this anything to do with your salvation, or merely the joy of it? Today you steal a copy of a piece of music; tomorrow you are accused of things Bernard Madoff did. Oh the humanity of it huh?

 

[Free]

As I said, my church is adamant on the issue. It's stealing. End of. I'm not saying that those are necessarily my views.

I agree with your church.

 

[Jules_C]

OK, but things are far from clear on this issue - I don't consider it kindergarten stuff at all. They take it to such an extreme as saying that even listening to music on Youtube means that people are less likely to buy it. I sometimes think they want to deny the whole of today's digital culture!

 

[farouk]

OK, but things are far from clear on this issue - I don't consider it kindergarten stuff at all. They take it to such an extreme as saying that even listening to music on Youtube means that people are less likely to buy it. I sometimes think they want to deny the whole of today's digital culture!

If for some reason your church friends are so keen on defending the rights of corporations against those of individuals, then isn't youtube a corporation, too?

 

[Double]

I once dealt with a man in a mental institution that had allowed the law to stretch this far into his life.

Has this anything to do with your salvation, or merely the joy of it? Today you steal a copy of a piece of music; tomorrow you are accused of things Bernard Madoff did. Oh the humanity of it huh?

Lol I'm definitely not as wise on certain subjects, and I'm still very new to reading the Bible, so I obviously can't quote anybody just yet. What I can say, is that I've got an innocent point of view on life, and I'm often not even aware of the sins I may be making. Just last week my mom brought up the idea that 'a sin to one person, may not exactly be a sin to another'. I don't know the source of where she heard that, but it does make a little sense, that it's really all in how the individual takes it in.

The way I see it; if I am physically or digitally unable to attain a certain song or album with hard earned money, I literally feel heartbroken inside because I am just out of options at that point.

If I ever do pirate something, it is never done out of spite or to 'get back' at anyone, it is just not in my personality to do that. I only do so because there is just no other attainable way to get my devices to play that certain song.

I listen to music solely for the joy of what it does to my soul, and see it as an artform that can do lots of good to the heart. When it comes to downloading music off the internet, I really think it's all in how one takes it, and what is done with it the music that counts

 

[Sparkey]

OK, but things are far from clear on this issue - I don't consider it kindergarten stuff at all. They take it to such an extreme as saying that even listening to music on Youtube means that people are less likely to buy it. I sometimes think they want to deny the whole of today's digital culture!

Again, fairly simple. But of course, I only have one witness (yours) to go on. I'm not saying that what you've said is not credible, nor do I have trouble imagining what you are describing but if there is no law that prohibits listening (what about when people drive with their windows down or neighbors who play their music loud?) then there is no sin.

Follow your good conscience, obey the law, serve God. There isn't much more, is there? Oh! Love others as you love yourself. That's the "sandbox" rules that I was speaking about. If it really troubles you I would not need much coaxing to do some research regarding copyright law and report back, but I doubt it would reveal anything that we don't already know.

 

[Sparkey]

If it really troubles you I would not need much coaxing to do some research regarding copyright law and report back, but I doubt it would reveal anything that we don't already know.

Why just talk about it, Sparrow??? Do it!

Okay, thanks for asking:

What is fair use?

In many countries, certain uses of copyright-protected works do not infringe the owner’s rights. In the United States, copyright rights are limited by the doctrine of “fair use.” In certain other countries, there is a similar concept called "fair dealing." It is your responsibility to understand the relevant law and whether it protects the use you have in mind.
In the United States, fair use can only be determined in a court of law. To determine whether a fair use defense is valid, judges examine the allegedly infringing use according to four factors. Uses for criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research may be considered fair.
If you plan to use even a small portion of copyrighted material, we'd strongly advise you to take legal advice first. YouTube cannot make determinations of fair use.
External fair use resources:

For more information on US copyright law and fair use, you may wish to consult the following sources:

• The US Copyright Office provides an explanation of the fair use exception.
• Stanford University also offers information on fair use and copyright law.
• The Chilling Effects Clearinghouse has answers to frequently asked questions about fair use and copyright law.
• The Center for Social Media at American University offers several best practices for fair use in different media, including one specifically targeted to online video.

Please note that the external sources listed above do not express the opinions or policies of YouTube or Google.

That'll get you started.

Here's a selected quote from the Stanford.edu site cited above:

Consider Fair Use Before Requesting DMCA Takedown

In 2008, a district court ruled that prior to requesting a takedown notice, a copyright owner must consider the likelihood of a claim of fair use. In that case, Universal Music issued a takedown notice for a video of a child dancing to the song, “Let’s Go Crazy,” by Prince. The owner of the video claimed that since Universal didn’t consider the issue of fair use, Universal could have not had a “good faith belief” they were entitled to a takedown. Faced with this novel issue a district court agreed that the failure to consider fair use when sending a DMCA notice could give rise to a claim of failing to act in good faith. (Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 572 F. Supp 2d 1150 (N.D. Cal. 2008).)

Music Cases

Fair use. A person running for political office used 15 seconds of his opponent’s campaign song in a political ad. Important factors: A small portion of the song was used and the purpose was for purposes of political debate. (Keep Thomson Governor Comm. v. Citizens for Gallen Comm., 457 F. Supp. 957 (D. N.H. 1978).)

Fair use. A television film crew, covering an Italian festival in Manhattan, recorded a band playing a portion of a copyrighted song “Dove sta Zaza.” The music was replayed during a news broadcast. Important factors: Only a portion of the song was used, it was incidental to the news event, and it did not result in any actual damage to the composer or to the market for the work. (Italian Book Corp., v. American Broadcasting Co., 458 F. Supp. 65 (S.D. N.Y. 1978).)

Not a fair use. Downloading songs is not a fair use. A woman was sued for copyright infringement for downloading 30 songs using peer-to-peer file sharing software. She argued that her activity was a fair use because she was downloading the songs to determine if she wanted to later buy them. Important factors: Since numerous sites, such as iTunes, permit listeners to sample and examine portions of songs without downloading, the court rejected this “sampling” defense. (BMG Music v. Gonzalez, 430 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2005).)

Not a fair use. A defendant in a music file sharing case could not claim a fair use defense since he had failed to provide evidence that his copying of music files involved any transformative use (an essential element in proving fair use). Important factors: The court held that the defendant was confusing “fairness” and “fair use”—“In the end, fair use is not a referendum on fairness in the abstract …” (Capitol Records Inc. v. Alaujan, 2009 WL 5873136 (D. Mass., 7/27/09).)

DISCLAIMER: These are matters of law and laws change. I can not (am not qualified) to give any legal opinions. You are not well advised to follow the things I say regarding legal matters. Still, it seems to me that the only party that may allege copyright infringement would be the one who is simultaneously alleging injury. Also note that copyright is time-limited and that all such works eventually pass into what is known as "public domain". This would be the subject for more research but I thought it would be worth mentioning.

 

[Adullam]

Let me ask this...was Jesus stealing from the local baker when He multiplied the loaves he had made (and reproduced the fish as well that a fisherman had caught)? Jesus was and is a spiritual replicating person. He can reproduce an infinity of copies of whatever in either realm.

We are at a stage where we can also do some replicating. In the digital world, we have reproducing machines that make new copies out of nothing and this without taking anything away from the original being copied. Very similar to the heavenly technology of replicating physical things.

So as long as a person does not seek to make money from a download...reproduce away!!!!

It is only the great evil of Mammon that seeks to exploit for money and abuse the freedom of others to enjoy the benefits that come to them.

 

[Free]

Let me ask this...was Jesus stealing from the local baker when He multiplied the loaves he had made (and reproduced the fish as well that a fisherman had caught)? Jesus was and is a spiritual replicating person. He can reproduce an infinity of copies of whatever in either realm.

We are at a stage where we can also do some replicating. In the digital world, we have reproducing machines that make new copies out of nothing and this without taking anything away from the original being copied. Very similar to the heavenly technology of replicating physical things.

So as long as a person does not seek to make money from a download...reproduce away!!!!

Jesus multiplying loaves isn't even a close analogy to downloading music. Not even close. It's illegal and it should be illegal.

 

[farouk]

Free: what about the 'fair use' provision?

Thoughts?

Blessings.

 

[Free]

Free: what about the 'fair use' provision?

Thoughts?

Blessings.

What does the 'fair use provision' state?

 

[Mountain Man]

We are moving towards a society that thinks everything should be free, that everyone somehow has a right to the property of others , that the talents and abilities of people are public property to be taken at will with no payment to the individual for what they contributed , if we continue to expect something for nothing pretty soon everything will be worth nothing because like it or not people create things and contribute to culture and society to first benefit themselves and their families...if there is no benefit or advantage why bother.

 

[farouk]

What does the 'fair use provision' state?

See # 28, above.

Blessings.

 

[Free]

See # 28, above.

Blessings.

I have no problem with that.

 

[farouk]

I have no problem with that.

Okay, ty.

I don't know a lot about it, actually.

 

[Sparkey]

Okay, ty.

I don't know a lot about it, actually.

It's not something that really needs that much study (in my opinion). Respect the rights of others. If you worked and wanted to give the product away, more power to you, if on the other hand you wanted to charge people for the benefit of your work, then that's okay too. Copyright law just re-enforces these principles. People get in trouble when they make it more difficult than it is. As far as my personal copyright goes, for my works and what I type here? Here is the model that I like:

All of my writings here are uncopyrighted (since June 2009).

That means I’ve put them in the public domain, and released my copyright on all these works.

There is no need to email me for permission — use my content however you want! Email it, share it, reprint it with or without credit. Change it around, put in a bunch of swear words and attribute them to me. It’s OK.

Attribution is appreciated but not required.


Why I’m releasing copyright
I’m not a big fan of copyright laws, especially as they’re being applied by corporations, used to crack down on the little guys so they can continue their large profits.

Copyrights are often said to protect the artist, but in most cases the artist gets very little while the corporations make most of the money. In the 4+ years I’ve done this experiment, releasing copyright has not hurt me, the creator of the content, a single bit.

I think, in most cases, the protectionism that is touted by “anti-piracy” campaigns and lawsuits and lobbying actually hurts the artist. Limiting distribution to protect profits isn’t a good thing.

The lack of copyright, and blatant copying by other artists and even businesses, never hurt Leonardo da Vinci when it comes to images such as the Mona Lisa, the Last Supper, or the Vitruvian Man. It’s never hurt Shakespeare. I doubt that it’s ever really hurt any artist (although I might just be ignorant here).

And while I’m certainly not da Vinci or Shakespeare, copyright hasn’t helped me, and uncopyright hasn’t hurt me. If someone feels like sharing my content on their blog, or in any other form for that matter, that’s a good thing for me (by my way of reckoning). If someone wanted to share my posts with 100 friends, I don’t see how that hurts me. My work is being spread to many more people than I could do myself. That’s something to celebrate, as I see it.

And if someone wants to take my work and improve upon it, as artists have been doing for centuries, I think that’s a wonderful thing. If they can take my favorite posts and make something funny or inspiring or thought-provoking or even sad … I say more power to them. The creative community only benefits from derivations and inspirations.

This isn’t a new concept, of course, and I’m freely ripping ideas off here. Which is kinda the point.

Counter arguments
There are a number of objects that will likely be brought up to this idea, and here are a few of my responses:

1. Google rank will go down. My understanding is that Google penalizes pages that have exact duplicates on other sites, when it comes to PageRank.

2. You’ll lose revenues. If people start to buy my writings and then distribute it to 20 people, and each of those distributes it to 20 more, and those to 20 more … I’ve lost a total of $0 in expected revenues. Perhaps. In this example, hundreds of people might be reading my work who wouldn’t have otherwise. That’s good for any content creator.

3. Who knows what people will do with your work? Someone could take my work, turn it into a piece of garbage, and put my name on it. They could translate it with all kinds of errors. They could … well, they could do just about anything. But that kind of thinking stems from a mind that wants to control content … while I am of the opinion that you can’t control it, and even if you can, it’s not a good thing. What if someone takes my work and turns it into something brilliant, and becomes the next major contributor to the world of ideas? Or more likely, what if they take the work and extend the concepts and make it even more useful, to even more people? Release control, and see what happens. People are wonderful, creative creatures. Let’s see what they can do.

4. What if someone publishes a book with all the content and makes a million dollars off it? I hope they at least give me credit. And my desire is that they give some of that money to a good cause. I also hope they didn't put in too many swear words, I don't think I'd like that, but I wouldn't object too harshly and certainly wouldn't sue them over it. After all, I've witness regrettable things coming from my mouth.

5. But … they’re stealing from you! You can’t steal what is given freely. I call this sharing, not piracy.

But please don't do anything that goes against the Terms you have agreed to in exchange for use of this Service. I don't want to get ya into trouble. ;)

 

[Sparkey]

Now there's a refreshing new viewpoint on this that I haven't heard before! Thanks! It does seem to be a real similar thing doesn't it? I buy a CD or someone gives it to me. I make 10 copies and give them to my friends. The corporations claim I am robbing them because had I not done this, those 10 friends might have bought those CDs from them. Isn't this what the whole controversy boils down too?

So Jesus buys or is given some fish and bread. He multiplies it (makes copies of it) and distributes them to the people around him for free. Certainly the local baker or fishmonger can say the same thing as today's corporations: "Had Jesus NOT made copies of our fish and bread, those people might have bought fish and bread from us. So because Jesus did this, we've been harmed by losing potential profits."

How is this NOT essentially the same thing?

The author of the "bread and fishes" is God and Jesus blessed the gifts He received and distributed them. It was a miracle, not an example of lawlessness. Jesus, as you know, never sinned.

 

[Milk-Drops]

The main problem here is that the market and copy right hasn't adapted to modern technological advancements. The owner of the composition of the song(s) has the right of the song(s). That means that Micheal Jackson owns(ed) the composition of Thriller. Its intellectual property. Now, until the dawn of the internet, musicians could sell Records, Cassettes, CDs for their record companies and make decent money because that was the only viable way to obtain it. The radio was another avenue.

The musical recordings are a promotion for the bands, mainly because the revenue is made on touring. The problem is that because of how music recording are made available, the internet has changed the availability. Youtube, online radio, Spotify, torrent sites, have made it easier to obtain music. Because of this, people are not as reliant on CDs. Record companies spend a lot of money to put these out. Instead of adapting and finding new ways of capitalizing on this new market, record companies are stuck.

People have tons of options for music now. With the internet we have access to practically every recording. Newer independant artists have figured this out and use it to their advantage. Record companies are not evil, but they don't fill the need that many want when it comes to music. Record companies give us Justin Bieber and One Direction. Why? Because its junk food that will sell and make tons of money through touring.

The internet has changed the field for music. I still buy music, from the people that I want to keep making music. Thanks to youtube I've found tons of music to support.

 

[Adullam]

Jesus multiplying loaves isn't even a close analogy to downloading music. Not even close. It's illegal and it should be illegal.

I don't hear a compelling argument here. Freedom has always hurt business. Should we invade countries in order to keep jobs in the defense industry? Or should I say...to keep the defense industry in business!!!

In the old days the record companies had the reproducing machines and made hoards of money by charging the public many times the value of their product....through advertising. Now, every body has the ability that was once reserved to the monopolizing record companies. What is wrong with that? What divine right does a monopolizer have over creation???