Downloading music from the internet

[Free]

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!!!

So why do you want to hurt businesses then? What do you have against businesses?

 

[Adullam]

That has nothing to do with Mammon or "devil's dues," and certainly not freedom. It has everything to do with paying for something that isn't yours, paying for a good that someone else made. Do you really expect artists to work for free?

I am a musician myself. We musicians are used to being underpaid and under-appreciated. Jazz scale is still far below the poverty line. By the way...how many musicians get paid on sunday morning compared to preachers?

So I understand the difficulty of paying for services rendered.


But as a Christian I see a big problem with trying to reign in the new technology. A new way must be found to renumerate artists that doesn't hamper the freedom of the individual. There is no going back. In the old days before recordings were possible, a musician had to physically play somewhere to be paid. The bible says we should work with our hands...

Trying to control information is evil in my books. Songs and other media is just more information. The internet gives us all access to information. Freedom of information supports the kingdom work. Liberty is more valuable than the right to make a profit.

 

[Adullam]

On one hand, I don't want to get in trouble with the law or encourage breaking the law. The Bible says to obey the laws of our land as long as they don't go against God's law.
On the other hand, I think the copyright laws can get a little ridiculous. ("You uploaded a speedpaint video to youtube with our song playing?! You must die!") But the people who make music work hard to do so and it's part of their livelihood. Also, if I like their music, I want to support them and help to keep them in business.

If I make something, and I'm making money off it as part of my livelihood, I wouldn't want someone else to produce and distribute my work en-mass. It's just common sense. I personally wouldn't care if people made copies to give to their friends, though, and restricting that would be rather ridiculous. (It'd be completely ridiculous to restrict copying from the CD to the computer to an iPod. But last time I checked, the laws consider this fair use.)
Now there are all kinds of opinions on this issue, but it seems to me that at the very least the golden rule would apply here.

The world has changed. Archaic copyright laws based on physical copying have little to do with the availability of media on the internet. Youtube is the new public domain. It is the new "town square" where people gather and share information...for free!!! This is good for the expansion of the gospel message. I don't think we should be overly concerned about pockets being lined or not.

 

[Sparkey]

Although the last question wasn't directed at me, sometimes I can't resist.

What do you have against businesses?

It's not so much what I have against business (I like business and would like to make profit) - but it is more about what businesses (many of them at least) and what they have against themselves. Some short-sighted businesses (many, in fact) have put profit and gain above all else. This greed motif hurts all. I think this is what brother Adullam is in reference to when he speaks about serving "Mammon" over God. When we use a proper scale and weigh ourselves as others, the gouging that happens with the "charge the price the market will bear" mentality and the denial of rightful wages to workers will cease. This has not happened, but it is prophesied and will happen. What will the merchants do as they gaze upon the ruin?

 

[Knotical]

Exactly! It is just that some of us have difficulty with the incursion of Mammon into our places of worship.

I guess this is one way to force your view into a topic. Good on ya.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Although the last question wasn't directed at me, sometimes I can't resist.

Lack of self-control is a cognitive-emotional issue. :toofunny

It's not so much what I have against business (I like business and would like to make profit) - but it is more about what businesses (many of them at least) and what they have against themselves. Some short-sighted businesses (many, in fact) have put profit and gain above all else. This greed motif hurts all. I think this is what brother Adullam is in reference to when he speaks about serving "Mammon" over God. When we use a proper scale and weigh ourselves as others, the gouging that happens with the "charge the price the market will bear" mentality and the denial of rightful wages to workers will cease. This has not happened, but it is prophesied and will happen. What will the merchants do as they gaze upon the ruin?

Worldly merchants will do as they will, and Christian merchants will do as they will. The Christian merchants of this age will not have to worry about it, because they won't be here when the ruin arrives. The believing merchants of the Tribulation age will likely aid their fellow believers without thought of profit (See the sheep in Matthew 25:41-46). We will be too busy enjoying the wedding feast of the Lamb to notice. :D

 

[evenifigoalone]

The world has changed. Archaic copyright laws based on physical copying have little to do with the availability of media on the internet. Youtube is the new public domain. It is the new "town square" where people gather and share information...for free!!! This is good for the expansion of the gospel message. I don't think we should be overly concerned about pockets being lined or not.

The copyright laws could probably stand to be updated, that much is true.
But things like music and movies and songs are not necessary to our lives. They are first and foremost entertainment. People simply like these things enough to pay money for them. Those who are in the entertainment industry are most likely there because they decided that is the area they can most likely earn a living from. If they are not able to make this money there because of people breaking copyright laws, they will probably be able to find work elsewhere. But they may also go out of business in the process. Don't think their fans want that. If you want an artist to stay around--buy their music.


Actual information and the gospel are an entirely different matter.

 

[Free]

The world has changed. Archaic copyright laws based on physical copying have little to do with the availability of media on the internet. Youtube is the new public domain. It is the new "town square" where people gather and share information...for free!!! This is good for the expansion of the gospel message. I don't think we should be overly concerned about pockets being lined or not.

Information is information is information. It doesn't matter the format or medium that the information is placed in. Going digital has nothing to do with making copyright laws archaic. It very much is about Intellectual Property.

 

[Free]

But as a Christian I see a big problem with trying to reign in the new technology. A new way must be found to renumerate artists that doesn't hamper the freedom of the individual. There is no going back. In the old days before recordings were possible, a musician had to physically play somewhere to be paid. The bible says we should work with our hands...

Trying to control information is evil in my books. Songs and other media is just more information. The internet gives us all access to information. Freedom of information supports the kingdom work. Liberty is more valuable than the right to make a profit.

Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with an individual's freedom. This is actually akin to the abortion debate. You are effectively advocating for the woman's freedom all the while ignoring the rights of the unborn.

An individual has certain rights to their own personal, purchased music, and can do with it what they want for their own listening, but they simply cannot do anything they want at the expense of the musician and others involved in the recording process.

 

[Knotical]

Here is the problem with how copyright laws are applied. Basically, anyone who has ever made a copy of "copyrighted" music is in violation of it. This means since the advent of the ability to record anything on a cassette tap all the way up to file sharing, millions of people are guilty of "breaking" this law. Have you ever made a mixed tape? You broke the law. Do you own a MP3 player and have "synced" music to it? You broke the law.

Regardless of whether you are doing these things for personal or public use you are breaking the law, in their opinion. How does this sit with you (this is a general question)?

 

[evenifigoalone]

Here is the problem with how copyright laws are applied. Basically, anyone who has ever made a copy of "copyrighted" music is in violation of it. This means since the advent of the ability to record anything on a cassette tap all the way up to file sharing, millions of people are guilty of "breaking" this law. Have you ever made a mixed tape? You broke the law. Do you own a MP3 player and have "synced" music to it? You broke the law.

Regardless of whether you are doing these things for personal or public use you are breaking the law, in their opinion. How does this sit with you (this is a general question)?

Actually, from the reading I've done, copying music you've already bought for personal use is considered fair use. You already bought it, you don't need to buy it twice.
It's when you distribute your copies en-mass, even without the intent of making money, that you're liable to be punished.
But maybe it's changed since then. If copying even for personal use is against the law, that'd be a law nearly impossible to follow strictly. (Just one example being, the only way to get music onto my MP3 player is to plug it into my computer and have it download my music library.)

 

[Knotical]

Actually, from the reading I've done, copying music you've already bought for personal use is considered fair use. You already bought it, you don't need to buy it twice.
It's when you distribute your copies en-mass, even without the intent of making money, that you're liable to be punished.
But maybe it's changed since then. If copying even for personal use is against the law, that'd be a law nearly impossible to follow strictly. (Just one example being, the only way to get music onto my MP3 player is to plug it into my computer and have it download my music library.)

And that is the rub when it comes to passing a law, whether or not it is reasonably enforceable. This is why we only hear about the "major" offenders when it comes to "piracy."

That is another thing. In the historical use of the word "pirate" these people are not guilty of it at all, considering piracy is taking something by force, where all these people are doing is covertly copying files and sharing them. Sometimes for profit, sometimes not. Of course if you are sharing music for a profit you are just asking for trouble.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Actually, from the reading I've done, copying music you've already bought for personal use is considered fair use. You already bought it, you don't need to buy it twice.
It's when you distribute your copies en-mass, even without the intent of making money, that you're liable to be punished.
But maybe it's changed since then. If copying even for personal use is against the law, that'd be a law nearly impossible to follow strictly. (Just one example being, the only way to get music onto my MP3 player is to plug it into my computer and have it download my music library.)

This is probably the best site to read up on copyright laws: http://www.copyright.gov/

 

[evenifigoalone]

And that is the rub when it comes to passing a law, whether or not it is reasonably enforceable. This is why we only hear about the "major" offenders when it comes to "piracy."

That is another thing. In the historical use of the word "pirate" these people are not guilty of it at all, considering piracy is taking something by force, where all these people are doing is covertly copying files and sharing them. Sometimes for profit, sometimes not. Of course if you are sharing music for a profit you are just asking for trouble.

Certainly.

I also don't think doing things like simply having music on a simple YouTube video are any harm--although the law doesn't see it that way if the copyright owner wants it taken down. That is where the subject becomes fuzzy for me. YouTube itself doesn't have much choice, of course. They can get in very deep water for not complying.

 

[Adullam]

Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with an individual's freedom. This is actually akin to the abortion debate. You are effectively advocating for the woman's freedom all the while ignoring the rights of the unborn.

An individual has certain rights to their own personal, purchased music, and can do with it what they want for their own listening, but they simply cannot do anything they want at the expense of the musician and others involved in the recording process.

The abortion issue doesn't compare since abortion is the destroying of something whereas copying is MORE reproduction. Again it was technology that allowed for a performance to be reproduced millions of times in order to make millions of dollars from a single performance. The advance of technology now allows for millions to reproduce one performance a million times thereby making it accessible and free. So technology giveth and then taketh away.

We are back to having to give physical performances in order to receive just payment. Recordings are now just advertisements.

 

[Adullam]

If a comedian who is trying to make a living (or a killing) on writing jokes has one of his joke creations go viral on the internet....are the joke tellers all in criminal violation of intellectual property rights?

 

[evenifigoalone]

What if they are not able to give a physical performance? I'm not sure how realistic this question is, but surely it's not always a readily available option.


Another topic--even using lyrics in a piece of artwork can be a copyright issue. Some artists don't mind (I got an e-mail from one one time praising a piece of my artwork with some of their lyrics on it), and others do. You'd think they'd like the free advertising, though.

 

[Knotical]

If a comedian who is trying to make a living (or a killing) on writing jokes has one of his joke creations go viral on the internet....are the joke tellers all in criminal violation of intellectual property rights?

That depends on if he copyrighted his material, which I would think would work against him in this example, as he would generate buzz for his next live performance where he would be able to charge a higher ticket price than if he was a no-name comedian.

 

[Free]

The abortion issue doesn't compare since abortion is the destroying of something whereas copying is MORE reproduction.

It does compare because it is about putting one's own preferences above someone else's rights. Do you think that people should be able to copy books and paintings and pass them around for free?

Again it was technology that allowed for a performance to be reproduced millions of times in order to make millions of dollars from a single performance. The advance of technology now allows for millions to reproduce one performance a million times thereby making it accessible and free. So technology giveth and then taketh away.

We are back to having to give physical performances in order to receive just payment. Recordings are now just advertisements.

If I understand you correctly, on the one hand you think music should be free to copy but on the other hand seem to imply that you don't get money for recordings and therefore have to do a live performance. But that is exactly what happens when music is illegally downloaded for free. It completely devalues the artists work and they get very little money.

 

[evenifigoalone]

If a comedian who is trying to make a living (or a killing) on writing jokes has one of his joke creations go viral on the internet....are the joke tellers all in criminal violation of intellectual property rights?

For simply telling the joke? I'd imagine not anymore than you'd get in trouble for repeating song lyrics, or writing them down. I've never seen anyone make an issue out of this. Not even on the internet, as long as credit is given.