Political Crossfire Forums

[LetsGetReal]

Hi,

I'm writing this in the christian forum because it is to Christians but should be acknowledged by non-believers as well. Downloading a movie, music, games, or even books off the internet is stealing. I see so many christian kids listening to burned Cd's like it isn't wrong. I believe this is a big problem and should be addressed more in the church. I try my best not to take advantage of things that seem so easy and innocent, but I've still done it. So I'm guilty of this too but I will work on it even more, because in the end it is wrong. Please try to do your bests to do the smallest things to avoid sin. Remember lying is a sin, stealing is a sin, and taking the lords name in vane is a sin. If you need help look at my sig, it has a beatiful verse that may help you.

Thanks,

LGR

P.S. Every sin we commit is more of a burden that Jesus Christ has to carry.

[Todd D.]

Quote: Downloading a movie, music, games, or even books off the internet is stealing.
Absolutely 100% incorrect. Like, you couldn't BE more wrong if you tried.

Theft is the robbery of someone else's property. If I steal someone's wallet, the crime is the fact that they no longer have their wallet. My theft has deprived them of property that was theirs, and they no longer have it. That's the very definition of "stealing".

File sharing is entirely seperate from this. With file sharing, you make perfect duplicates to distribute as you see fit. Wheras with theft it's either "you have it" or "I have it", with file sharing it's "I have this...do you want it?" The two are so not even comparable it's not funny.

Calling the download of files "stealing" or "theft" just shows the ignorance that the RIAA or the MPAA sees the American public as, and the willingness of the American public to accept, even glorify, such definitions. If you think that it's stealing, then you are retarded, plain and simple. It's not stealing, period. You can make a good case that it is "wrong", but it is in no way shape or form "stealing".

[LetsGetReal]

Umm... I thought you were an advocate of personal property? They are selling their lyrics/vocal abilities on that CD. To reproduce it and give it to everyone is stealing because you did not buy the rights to the songs just to that CD. That individual CD!! Why do you have the right to download peoples music for free when it's against the law!! Downloading music for free is against the law!! Notice how napster charges now, can you get a grip on reality or even christianity. You believe in evolution and stealing of peoples copyrighted lyrics, I'm sincerely starting to question your belief in God.

File sharing is communist but don't worry I knew you weren't a real libertarian.

[psholtz]

LetsGetReal wrote: I'm writing this in the christian forum because it is to Christians but should be acknowledged by non-believers as well. Downloading a movie, music, games, or even books off the internet is stealing.
Hollywood's entertainment Megaloposis is built partly upon outright theft, and partly upon the complete rape of all U.S. copyright law.

When the Constitution was written, I think that copyrights were valid for something like 7 years. Today it's over 100 years. No (normal) human being lives to be 100 years old, although corporations (obviously) can. So just as obviously, copyright law has been subverted and no longer protects the creative interests of the artist (i.e., individual who wrote it), but instead protects only the financial interests of the Communist Corporation which holds the copyright.

This is one of the more minor things wrong w/ our Republic, but it's one that is everywhere around us.

Mozart and Beethoven never copyrigted their music, and they never cared to. You know why? b/c they actually had talent. Britney Spears and Snoop Dog have to copyright and trademark every last word they say.. You know why? b/c they utterly suck, and they wouldn't make a goddamn dime of money if they WEREN'T copyrighting everything they did and said.

[psholtz]

LetsGetReal wrote: File sharing is communist but don't worry I knew you weren't a real libertarian.
Sure whatever...

Just keep repeating whatever your Mind Controllers program you to repeat.. :roll:

[cap'n queasy]

LetsGetReal wrote: Hi,

I'm writing this in the christian forum because it is to Christians but should be acknowledged by non-believers as well. Downloading a movie, music, games, or even books off the internet is stealing. I see so many christian kids listening to burned Cd's like it isn't wrong. I believe this is a big problem and should be addressed more in the church. I try my best not to take advantage of things that seem so easy and innocent, but I've still done it. So I'm guilty of this too but I will work on it even more, because in the end it is wrong. Please try to do your bests to do the smallest things to avoid sin. Remember lying is a sin, stealing is a sin, and taking the lords name in vane is a sin. If you need help look at my sig, it has a beatiful verse that may help you.

Thanks,

LGR

P.S. Every sin we commit is more of a burden that Jesus Christ has to carry.

I think it is stealing, as well. Unless it's content that is open to the public.
Which there is a lot of nowadays.

I don't do it, anymore. At one time I had a huge library of music and I deleted it because that's what came into my heart to do.

[Todd D.]

Quote: Umm... I thought you were an advocate of personal property?
I am. I believe that when you buy a CD, you own the CD. You can do whatever you want with that CD, including make copies of it. If anything, my stance is far more indicative of a believe in Private Property than yours. The RIAA seems to believe that when you buy a CD, you are simply leasing it from them and that while you paid your money for it, THEY still own the CD and are just letting you listen to it. How generous.

Quote: To reproduce it and give it to everyone is stealing because you did not buy the rights to the songs just to that CD. That individual CD!!
Again, you clearly have no idea what the word "stealing" means. See above. Stealing is when you deprive someone of their property. If I were to download a perfect copy of something that someone else willingly gave me, and that someone else still retains their copy, how on earth can you call that stealing?

Quote: Why do you have the right to download peoples music for free when it's against the law!!
And since when does Man's secular law ever dictate what is "right" and what is "wrong"? I'm speaking from a moral standpoint, not a legal one.

Quote: Notice how napster charges now, can you get a grip on reality or even christianity.
Yes, I can.

Quote: You believe in evolution and stealing of peoples copyrighted lyrics, I'm sincerely starting to question your belief in God.
You are free to question whatever you like, however idiotic it may be.

Quote: File sharing is communist but don't worry I knew you weren't a real libertarian.
So in addition to stealing, you clearly have no clue what Communism means either.

File sharing is a lesson in Economic Supply and Demand. The cost of making perfect duplciates is next to nil (save for the time it takes to copy the files to your hard drive and the hard drive space that they take up), so the quantity suppliefd is huge. The transaction costs are, again, next to nothing. Because of both of this, the point where the demand curve meets supply is at a very very low price, usually zero. You can say that it's "Communism" all you want, but that's really just displaying a middle school education and no concept of what the word really means.

[connermt]

I have always wondered about a lie.
Are actors telling lies when they act like another person with another life? Is it a lie to tell someone there is no party when in fact there is & you are trying to surprise them?
Is it a lit to tell someone they don't look fat in the dress when they look MORE than fat?

I mean, how strict are we suppose to be when it comes to telling lies?

[perdidochas]

Todd D. wrote: Quote: Downloading a movie, music, games, or even books off the internet is stealing.
Absolutely 100% incorrect. Like, you couldn't BE more wrong if you tried.

Theft is the robbery of someone else's property. If I steal someone's wallet, the crime is the fact that they no longer have their wallet. My theft has deprived them of property that was theirs, and they no longer have it. That's the very definition of "stealing".

File sharing is entirely seperate from this. With file sharing, you make perfect duplicates to distribute as you see fit. Wheras with theft it's either "you have it" or "I have it", with file sharing it's "I have this...do you want it?" The two are so not even comparable it's not funny.

Calling the download of files "stealing" or "theft" just shows the ignorance that the RIAA or the MPAA sees the American public as, and the willingness of the American public to accept, even glorify, such definitions. If you think that it's stealing, then you are retarded, plain and simple. It's not stealing, period. You can make a good case that it is "wrong", but it is in no way shape or form "stealing".

File "sharing" is stealing copyright. Of course it's stealing. Also, it's against the law. The Catholic Church frowns on breaking the law, especially just ones.

You would think differently if you were in an industry that relies on copyright to make a living. If you were a computer programmer, a musician or a author, you would understand that it truly is stealing.

[perdidochas]

[quote="Todd D."] Quote: Umm... I thought you were an advocate of personal property?
I am. I believe that when you buy a CD, you own the CD. You can do whatever you want with that CD, including make copies of it. If anything, my stance is far more indicative of a believe in Private Property than yours. The RIAA seems to believe that when you buy a CD, you are simply leasing it from them and that while you paid your money for it, THEY still own the CD and are just letting you listen to it. How generous. Todd D. wrote: u buy a CD, you own the rights to play and listen to the music. You do not own the rights to distribute it. You can take your CD, and you can make copies of it for your own personal use legally--i.e. you can burn a .mp3 copy of the music, you can record it on audiocassette, you can put it on a personal mix. However, you don't have the right to give those copies to anybody else. You can give that CD to anyone else (provided you destroy all your personal copies), so, of course, you own the CD.

[quote="Todd D."] Quote: To reproduce it and give it to everyone is stealing because you did not buy the rights to the songs just to that CD. That individual CD!!
Again, you clearly have no idea what the word "stealing" means. See above. Stealing is when you deprive someone of their property. If I were to download a perfect copy of something that someone else willingly gave me, and that someone else still retains their copy, how on earth can you call that stealing?

You are stealing their copyright. You don't have a right to copy the music and give it to others. That is what copyright means.

Todd D. wrote: Quote: Why do you have the right to download peoples music for free when it's against the law!!
And since when does Man's secular law ever dictate what is "right" and what is "wrong"? I'm speaking from a moral standpoint, not a legal one.

This isn't an unjust law.

Todd D. wrote: Quote: Notice how napster charges now, can you get a grip on reality or even christianity.
Yes, I can.

Quote: You believe in evolution and stealing of peoples copyrighted lyrics, I'm sincerely starting to question your belief in God.
You are free to question whatever you like, however idiotic it may be.

Quote: File sharing is communist but don't worry I knew you weren't a real libertarian.
So in addition to stealing, you clearly have no clue what Communism means either.

File sharing is a lesson in Economic Supply and Demand. The cost of making perfect duplciates is next to nil (save for the time it takes to copy the files to your hard drive and the hard drive space that they take up), so the quantity suppliefd is huge. The transaction costs are, again, next to nothing. Because of both of this, the point where the demand curve meets supply is at a very very low price, usually zero. You can say that it's "Communism" all you want, but that's really just displaying a middle school education and no concept of what the word really means.

All I can say about filesharing, is that you have no real conception of the fact that it's cheating until you produce copyrightable materal and want to make your rightful money from your creative work. Put yourself in the shoes of the artist or the computer programmer, and you will realize that stealing someone's intellectual work is just like stealing out of their pocket.

[snow]

Am I stealing if I record a song on tape off of the radio?

[Duchifas]

Intellectual property is also property. Granted, (in agreement with psholtz) that some of our laws aren't very good, but the right to intellectual property has been recognized from the beginning in this country.

Todd wrote: I am. I believe that when you buy a CD, you own the CD. You can do whatever you want with that CD, including make copies of it.

You cannot do anything you want with that CD. You can do a lot, but you do not have the right to do the following (unless you obtain consent):

1) the right to reproduce the copyrighted work, 2) the right to make derivative works, 3) the right to distribute copies to the public, 4) the right to perform the work in public, 5) the right to display the work in public (applies to visual media).

There are exceptions, but they do not apply to the context discussed here.

To phrase it another way, when the artists sells you his CD (through a store), he is not selling you the right to make 20 copies and resell them to people. That's the artist's right, under our laws, and he can do with it as he pleases. The fact that the public has different perception about how the process works is a different problem, which does excuse stealing.

That said, we are all guilty of copyright violations, in no small measure on this forum. Every time we copy and paste a copyrighted piece (most media articles) without consent, we are infringing on their copyright. :twisted:

[perdidochas]

snow wrote: Am I stealing if I record a song on tape off of the radio?

Not unless you sell it, or play it in a business establishment.

[Duchifas]

Quote: Again, you clearly have no idea what the word "stealing" means. See above. Stealing is when you deprive someone of their property. If I were to download a perfect copy of something that someone else willingly gave me, and that someone else still retains their copy, how on earth can you call that stealing?

Property comes in different flavors. For example, if you copy Coca Cola's secret recipe and sell it to Pepsi, you didn't really take anything away from them. They still have their recipe in their vault.

But I don't think you can argue that this would not qualify as stealing.

Quote: And since when does Man's secular law ever dictate what is "right" and what is "wrong"? I'm speaking from a moral standpoint, not a legal one.

From a moral standpoint, a man is free to sell you what he wants, and not to sell you what he wants. When he sells you something that has a symbol (c) on it, he is only selling you limited rights in his work. That little (c) basically means that for the $15 you paid me, I am selling you the right to listen to my song and make personal copies. If you want to make copies for resale of my work which took me years of education and lots of effort to produce, you are welcome to call my agent and work out a deal, but it is likely to cost you more than $15.

From a moral standpoint, that is his absolute right, and you have your absolute right not to buy it from him if you don't want to.

[Duchifas]

psholtz wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: I'm writing this in the christian forum because it is to Christians but should be acknowledged by non-believers as well. Downloading a movie, music, games, or even books off the internet is stealing.
Hollywood's entertainment Megaloposis is built partly upon outright theft, and partly upon the complete rape of all U.S. copyright law.

When the Constitution was written, I think that copyrights were valid for something like 7 years. Today it's over 100 years. No (normal) human being lives to be 100 years old, although corporations (obviously) can. So just as obviously, copyright law has been subverted and no longer protects the creative interests of the artist (i.e., individual who wrote it), but instead protects only the financial interests of the Communist Corporation which holds the copyright.

I agree to a large extent with what you say.

Am I right to imply from your post that you would view intentional violation of Copyright Act as a sort of civil disobedience? Like tearing up draft cards and burning the flag and such?

As in, I don't care so much for personal benefit from ripping off music, it's that I am doing it as a protest against unjust laws! :)

[connermt]

perdidochas wrote: snow wrote: Am I stealing if I record a song on tape off of the radio?

Not unless you sell it, or play it in a business establishment.

What is the difference from taping a song off the radio & taking it from a internet site?
Shared internet sites (EMULE, SHARAZAA, etc), use files that are available from people on their network. THOSE people are allowing anyone to take the file that they put on their computer. Many times, these files are from CDs, DVDs, cassteets (etc) that these people originally purchased. So you aren't techinically stealing from these people (or the music/movie companies) because the people that purchased the files originally are allowing you to take their file.

[LetsGetReal]

snow wrote: Am I stealing if I record a song on tape off of the radio? I would say yes, because your not paying for it, and its like file sharing with the radio.

And since I'm going to have to further my explanation on why its communist because Todd's intelligence is lacking here I go. Communism advocates the absence of personal property for the greater good. When you dl a song/game/book/or movie that person or company has just lost its personal property because you decided that their need to acquire money for the hard work and dedication they put into it wasn't enough for you to buy it. So the artist/writer/programmer lost their personal property, which is their "work", and is freely distributed. Now why is that fair or just?

Duchifas, but if I am correct is it not ok to republish their work if you quote it and link it?

Todd please don't try to find excuses for your sins, just ask for forgiveness, and try to change the actions that caused you to do it.

On a side note I didn't do this to degrade people that do this, but to bring it to their attention that what is commonly accepted is a sin. If you want to know why I did it read the Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis. He explains what the devil is slowly doing better then I could ever do.

[perdidochas]

Duchifas wrote: psholtz wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: I'm writing this in the christian forum because it is to Christians but should be acknowledged by non-believers as well. Downloading a movie, music, games, or even books off the internet is stealing.
Hollywood's entertainment Megaloposis is built partly upon outright theft, and partly upon the complete rape of all U.S. copyright law.

When the Constitution was written, I think that copyrights were valid for something like 7 years. Today it's over 100 years. No (normal) human being lives to be 100 years old, although corporations (obviously) can. So just as obviously, copyright law has been subverted and no longer protects the creative interests of the artist (i.e., individual who wrote it), but instead protects only the financial interests of the Communist Corporation which holds the copyright.

I agree to a large extent with what you say.

Am I right to imply from your post that you would view intentional violation of Copyright Act as a sort of civil disobedience? Like tearing up draft cards and burning the flag and such?

As in, I don't care so much for personal benefit from ripping off music, it's that I am doing it as a protest against unjust laws! :)

I would only agree if you were also participating in legitimate protest, and had been involved in such for some time. What have you done to inform your congressman that you disagree with the extensions in copyright,etc.? I agree that the extensions have been absurd--when copyright law began, copyright owners had 14 yrs, which could be extended another 14 yrs. That went to 28 yrs, with a 14 yr extension. That went to 28 +28yrs at the turn of the 20th century, and then to life +50 (in 1976) (which has been the international convention since 1886), and finally to life + 70 in 1998. I have no problem with copyright, I just think that we should go back to closer to the original--say life + 14 yrs. This would allow the owner of the copyright the chance to make a good living from his work for his lifetime, yet open it up fairly quickly after his death.

[Duchifas]

Quote: Duchifas, but if I am correct is it not ok to republish their work if you quote it and link it?

Questionable. A lot of it depends on the sources, some allow you to do it, some don't. Many partner up with big clearing houses that license out their work.

For example, New York Times policy:

Quote: All materials contained on this site are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of The New York Times Company or in the case of third party materials, the owner of that content. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.

However, you may download material from The New York Times on the Web (one machine readable copy and one print copy per page) for your personal, noncommercial use only.

Links to Web sites other than those owned by The New York Times Company are offered as a service to readers. The editorial staff of The New York Times was not involved in their production and is not responsible for their content.

For further information, see Section Two of the Member Agreement.

To contact other Times departments, see the Site Help area of our Member Center.

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html

[LetsGetReal]

Well you don't have to worry I don't quote the Liberal Times :lol:, I'm sorry I mean the New York Times. But thanks for the info and I don't see why they wouldn't let us quote with a link. Because it would generate more views aka more clicks on the ads(generate greater income), so maybe someone should bring that to their attention.