Downloading music from the internet

[farouk]

Two clowns were singing. The man clown sang to the lady clown: 'I love you'.

In the audience was a lawyer. He said: 'Hey, I have a client who can claim copyright on those lyrics!'

Counsel for Red Nose Associates said: 'Hey, we can claim prior copyright on those lyrics!'

The two lawyers go before a judge.

The judge put on a red nose, said, 'Case dismissed!' and asked: 'Who among us is the biggest clown?'

 

[Adullam]

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.

Agreed! Hence the proper use of the media.

 

[Dan1966]

Is this right? Or is it morally questionable? Some people have said to me
that it's nothing better than common theft.

It's not right in ethics or moral sense.

 

[Adullam]

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?

That is physical reproduction. As long as the person is not doing this with fraud or the making of money in mind...sure. Do you know how many old people go to art classes and copy a famous painting? Have you never received a photocopy of an article that is to be discussed? Copying is the sincerest form of flattery. Would an artist demand to see a sales receipt from someone who said he enjoyed his work?

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.

Devalues is only one way of seeing it....popularization is the other way of seeing it. Since when is it bad for a person's work to become copied by the millions? It gets the message out. Advertisers know this....THEY pay for people to hear their work (which often includes songs and video)

 

[Adullam]

Two clowns were singing. The man clown sang to the lady clown: 'I love you'.

In the audience was a lawyer. He said: 'Hey, I have a client who can claim copyright on those lyrics!'

Counsel for Red Nose Associates said: 'Hey, we can claim prior copyright on those lyrics!'

The two lawyers go before a judge.

The judge put on a red nose, said, 'Case dismissed!' and asked: 'Who among us is the biggest clown?'

A person has to try cashing in in a capitalist system. But should Christians take these clowns so seriously?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

We seem to have forgotten the bottom line here: Should Christians (or anyone, for that matter) download music from the Internet without paying for it? NO!!

So what if it is out there to download? If bank robbers dropped a bag of loot on the way to their getaway car, would you keep the bag yourself? (Unfortunately, I have a suspicion some would.)

As Sparrow said, copyright laws prevent you from downloading music legally without paying for it. If you don't buy that, you have a lot of work to do.

 

[Sparkey]

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 here we begin to cross the line between copyright infringement and possible violation of clauses within license agreements. Software is notorious for such things. But copyright law does include congressional thoughts (not just the thoughts of those who write the "agreements") about fair use. By the way, there is a well known defense - imagine if you were about to park your car, and you paid the meter and received the little ticket stub that directed you in BOLD TYPE to place it on the dashboard in plain view. Imagine also that there were various terms and conditions limiting the liability of the property owner (the parking lot), but since there was insufficient lighting available, and since you were not able to read the "fine print" was it possible that you accepted the agreement unawares?

I like to place the little stub on my driver's seat and thereby give no implied acknowledge of even the "bold print". Not like it matters, but I'm just stubborn that way.

 

[Sparkey]

We seem to have forgotten the bottom line here: Should Christians (or anyone, for that matter) download music from the Internet without paying for it? NO!!

So what if it is out there to download? If bank robbers dropped a bag of loot on the way to their getaway car, would you keep the bag yourself? (Unfortunately, I have a suspicion some would.)

As Sparrow said, copyright laws prevent you from downloading music legally without paying for it. If you don't buy that, you have a lot of work to do.

If I found a bag of money I would report it, of course, but I would also expect to have it returned to me when the rightful owner did not claim it. That would not be the case for the bank, they would want their money back, but maybe a little reward? I would not object.

Still, I do take your point. We need to consider God in all of our ways. Even in the tiny and little greedy dark parts of my selfish and stingy, shriveled heart. Oh, let it not be so!

 

[farouk]

PS: The judge then took his red nose off, and went home.

 

[Free]

That is physical reproduction. As long as the person is not doing this with fraud or the making of money in mind...sure. Do you know how many old people go to art classes and copy a famous painting? Have you never received a photocopy of an article that is to be discussed? Copying is the sincerest form of flattery. Would an artist demand to see a sales receipt from someone who said he enjoyed his work?

It is one thing to learn how to paint by copying an artist's work. It is quite another to continue making copies for whomever wants one. Artists who copy another's work are not well respected among artists who do their own.

Devalues is only one way of seeing it....popularization is the other way of seeing it. Since when is it bad for a person's work to become copied by the millions? It gets the message out. Advertisers know this....THEY pay for people to hear their work (which often includes songs and video)

Once again you are shooting your own argument in the foot. The music and the artist get devalued through illegal copying and that is all that matters here. Again, it is one thing for the artist to provide his music for free for people to copy for the purpose of popularization, it is quite another for the artists to make that music available only through purchase and someone else purchases it and makes it available for free without the artist's permission.

Such an act essentially tells the musician that his music is worthless. It is probably the ultimate act of disrespect to an artist, at least as far as the consumer goes.

 

[phantom309]

I used to download music quite a bit until my wife asked me one day if I thought it was wrong.Until then Id never really stopped to think about it,but once I did it does seem to me to be the equivalent to theft.I do see the rationale in various sides here,but this is roughly how I see it.

Actually downloading the music to keep and use is,to me,the same as shoplifting a CD from walmart.These artists have put in the time and personal sacrifice to make the music and get the record deal so I can fully understand wanting to get paid for their work..which would include being paid very well if their music just so happens to be the latest craze.They did the work,payment should follow if we wish to own a copy to enjoy.On the other hand,if youve bought a copy of the CD and want to burn a few extras to carry around in other places or to keep the original intact I feel its the full right of the owner to do so despite federal copying laws,given the intent is personal use only and youre not doing it to turn a profit on someone elses work.

Youtube listening and so forth I dont see a problem with.It would be the same as turning on the radio where a person would listen for free anyway.As another poster mentioned,its also an excellent way to know in advance if the album is worth the hefty price tags these days in addition to finding out if that one good song is accompanied by 12 other tracks that arent so PG-13..been there and regretted supporting the band.

As pointed out by another poster,many of these artists cry and whine as if theyre going broke when in reality theyre living a life of extreme lavish excess.I think its a bit of dishonesty on their part,but in the end we all would want to get paid for the work we do.Particularly the newer bands trying to break out and just simply pay the bills like the rest of us.They all gotta start somewhere but whether youre at the top or bottom its nice to be compensated for your efforts.

Now one aspect of this topic that I have considered a grey area is in the case of a deceased artist.I like alot of the older country,big band and other stuff from as far back as the 30's.So lets just say Id like to get a copy of a song by Johnny Cash.Most of his stuff is readily accessible simply due to being such a big name,plus the fact that he hasnt been gone long.However,the dilemma then ensues.Someone out there no doubt bought the rights to his music,but should the same considerations apply when the person who did the work is dead and gone?

To bring up another,greyer,area..lets go a bit further back in time.Lets say Id like some music from random artist "X" way back from the 30s.Ive actually attempted to look things up like this on itunes and other pay-to-own services and you simply cannot find it anymore,whereas you log into one of the file-sharing services or some such and there it is.When the original artist isnt even alive and time reduces the available sources for certain music,is it still considered stealing?Ive not been certain which way to lean on it for quite some time,and am curious to see some input from others on it.

 

[Mountain Man]

One can download almost any song on Amazon for 89 cents,its a shame when people would rather steal something that pay 89 cents for it

 

[Milk-Drops]

To bring up another,greyer,area..lets go a bit further back in time.Lets say Id like some music from random artist "X" way back from the 30s.Ive actually attempted to look things up like this on itunes and other pay-to-own services and you simply cannot find it anymore,whereas you log into one of the file-sharing services or some such and there it is.When the original artist isnt even alive and time reduces the available sources for certain music,is it still considered stealing?Ive not been certain which way to lean on it for quite some time,and am curious to see some input from others on it.

It used to be that this wasn't a grey area at all. Originally copyright and trademark would cease once the owner died. You could pass on copyright to your descendants and others through legal documents if you wished. If it wasn't, it would enter public domain. Here is a site that explains how things enter the public domain. http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

The reason why public domain and copyright extensions happen is due to a company by the name of Disney. Now Walt didn't do this, but owners of the company since have. The Disney company has lobbied to have the copyright extended to the point that it is now 70 to 95 years ( depending on when it was created) after the death of the creator before something enters public domain. Unless, the author states otherwise before death legally.

So you might be able to obtain music from the 30s if its copyright wasn't renewed.

This is why many E-book groups such as Kindle, Apple, Barnes and Noble, etc are able to let you download classics for free. Public domain baby. We own the property now.

 

[farouk]

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.

questdriven: I've seen some folk to to claim copyright for the most pedestrian, simple phrases; when they talk in this way, it may be no more meaningful than when someone having a bad day says: 'I'm gonna call my lawyer'.

Blessings.

 

[evenifigoalone]

questdriven: I've seen some folk to to claim copyright for the most pedestrian, simple phrases; when they talk in this way, it may be no more meaningful than when someone having a bad day says: 'I'm gonna call my lawyer'.

Blessings.

I guess people will take anything too far.

 

[tim-from-pa]

A few years back this downloading stuff struck a furious reaction in me, not because of the moral ethics of downloading, but because of the way the RIAA and law handled things really entered the realm of invasion of privacy and being downright unconstitutional. All the big RIAA had to do was convince some jelly-chinned, gavel weilding judge to seize someone's somputer just out of suspicion of downloading music --- one private entity demanding another private entity's computer. This was nothing less than despotism and if the shoe was on the other foot and I as a private citizen would demand a judge to seize a corporate computer of the RIAA because I suspected they were downloading, I'll bet the national debt to every donut from Dunkin that I would be laughed to scorn. Why? Because they have the trillions of dollars leached off the artists, and if they want some peon's computer to add even more money to their 9- 10- 11 or more digit salaries, the law just bows to them. But what legal recourse does the average person have? They can't sue the big RIAA because they don't have the money.

And proof that these goons hadn't a clue what they were doing and yet arrogantly just charged anyone were the myriads of stories about dead grandmothers being sued, and infringement notices sent to households that did not even have the Internet. This is why this country is going down the tubes fast because when we think about it, the law sided with this bullying and tactics.

But then again, one thing that people have to watch for with illegal downloading is the viruses anyway. Since the average Joe has Microsoft, all one has to do is turn it on and it can be severely damaged at the drop of a hat. Back then, when I was like everyone else, that's why I was never tempted because no song (or porno girl) was worth enough to wreck a severely fragile Microsoft machine, then or even today. When it works well, I enjoyed using it and did not feel like fixing it 5 hours daily due to the virus issue.

Today, I suppose I could download music if I want, but there's nothing I really enjoy anyway, even though I no longer have a virus issue. But then that opens another question. What about "youtube"? Here we have a site that clearly and openly hosts copyrighted music, but it's "us peons" that get the computer seized.... Oh yeah, that's right. Youtube has more money like the RIAA. :halo