Illegal downloads

[Shazzle]

Woooow. I think it's really quite surprising how many Christians justify this practice.

Put the shoe on this way:

We're supposed to do unto others as we would have done unto ourselves. It's one of those basic principles that even non-Christians can agree with. How would you feel if you decided to follow God's plan for your life and become a music artist? It takes a lot of dedication, working your way up, etc. It takes a lot of money to create the music, and a lot more to promote it. There are producers and sound techs and all sorts of little guys who have to be paid in order for that music to ever be made. So yeah, when you don't pay for it, it hurts people. Not just the recording artists, who you can kind of slough off your guilt about, but normal people who work traditional jobs for a living and need a paycheck to support their families.

Taking something for your own personal use and enjoyment without providing proper compensation for that something is morally wrong to me because I know I wouldn't want somebody taking what I produced without paying for it, whether it was something tangible like a television or the intangible like the show that is played upon it. Justify it any way you like, but don't be surprised when fewer artists are able to make it. I would think if you enjoy it enough to personally listen, you'd WANT to support that person/band making more music .

Edit: And btw, Zune Pass is EXCELLENT for those who are on a tight budget and don't want to have to steal music just to enjoy it. Rhapsody as well!

 

[laconicstudent]

I recommend Pandora Radio - Listen to Free Internet Radio, Find New Music

Anyways, I try not to download music.... too much anyway, because lets be honest. Audiobook prices are obscene.

Anyhow, I would prefer to buy the music. As cheaply as possible. I like to support artists when I can.

 

[bsd31]

Theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent.


In music downloading you are only making a copy, not taking property away.

If I walked into the newsagents, and took photo's of a daily newspaper with my camera phone, am I stealing? It's the same thing.

Although having said that, free services such as Spotify more or less meet my music needs these days, and at least the artists get paid a small amount. I think this kind of thing will be the way forward, for film and software too.

Well said.

This is exactly why downloading media is not a criminal offense, but rather a civil one. Because by doing it you're not depriving anyone of anything.

 

[heron]

Some of your friends are in school, preparing to be writers and musicians. They will enter the field that is engulfed by this mindset of consumers getting something for nothing. Your friends will be the starving artists of this generation, if their rights are not protected.

It's more about what sort of world you want to create, to live in.

 

[Rainbu]

Many of the things I download I would not have bought had they not been available for download.

If I like the movie or song enough after I use the download, then I'll buy a hard copy.

 

[ImperialPhantom]

Considering that almost every song in the history of man (video or not) is on Youtube, those who claim to want to "preview" music should have no reason to download music with previews available on either Youtube, Pandora or Amazon. Especially Christians. Christians have NO business trying to justify it.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Breaking the law, except in a few special cases (where it goes directly against God's will) is denounced in the Bible. No justification anyone can offer is going to suggest that having to buy music somehow goes directly against God's will. It also does cause harm to people, and not just to CEOs and rich musicians. Everyone involved in making the music is harmed, since so many people illegally download that it ends up having a significant effect.

I think that most of the videos on YouTube are illegal, too, although you can definitely find some that are posted legally. Usually they either get posted directly through the company, or through Vivo.

 

[Rolande]

I download illegally but I won't say that it's a good thing, but for them to say it's music sales lost, is untrue because tape bootlegging has existed before the invention of p2p and direct download file sharing. For tv shows, again they've already been broadcast so what is the point of buying them later on, when you can have it now for free. As for movies, well to be honest, nothing beats seeing them at the cinemas but I do get hard to find movies off the internet because I won't be able to get them reasonably priced anywhere else so again, wouldn't be a sale lost because can't purchase it. At the same time, I do buy CD's of artists I know and love but I'm not gonna buy some crappy cd when in a years time, this sort of music won't even be considered good, I prefer timeless music so I'll buy song's from artist who I know I'll like in 5 years.

 

[TheApostleJohn]

No, for one thing it's against the law, and even if it wasn't, it would still be stealing. I've never downloaded anything illegally, but I've still watched movies/listened to albums on Youtube, which is supporting someone who illegally puts it there. So yeah, I need to work on that; there are so many ways to listen to free music online legally(HypeMachine, LastFM), and most libraries have a good movie selection, so there's really no need. People are just lazy.

 

[lrader99]

I am also guilty of having downloaded songs or received burned Cd's from people who I know downloaded the songs. Lately my choice of music is really being challenged, Im not quite sure how to deal with that yet. God is still working on me. I also listen to music on Youtube sometimes. I had never thought of it as stealing until now. I need to purge my music of all things that have been illegally attained.

 

[lrader99]

you know what, I was so convicted by this that I went through my Itunes and deleted all of the files that had been downloaded.

 

[TheApostleJohn]

I am also guilty of having downloaded songs or received burned Cd's from people who I know downloaded the songs. Lately my choice of music is really being challenged, Im not quite sure how to deal with that yet. God is still working on me. I also listen to music on Youtube sometimes. I had never thought of it as stealing until now. I need to purge my music of all things that have been illegally attained.

Just to add, ALL music on youtube is not illegal. If it's a music video it's fine; it was created for the purpose of promoting a band/album, so there's no reason you'd pay for it.

 

[heron]

I knew people in a band that reached the point of international recognition. During a peak in their popularity, they said they were still netting close to minimum wage, for hours spent. There are so many expenses that go into making music and going public.

 

[HRw716]

If even the world knows it is wrong to be doing it... why should we as Christian's be doing it?

 

[benf]

If even the world knows it is wrong to be doing it... why should we as Christian's be doing it?

Perfectly put.

If I knew how this crazy forum worked I'd send you a blessing or something!!



I just recently learned to let go of my illegal music and forget about it. There are plenty of a alternative places to find music that is legal and free, typically in CD quality.

If I can part with a 3 terabyte lossless collection of all the best records ever made, you can give up yours.

But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal Matthew 6:20

 

[TheReasoner]

Don't you guys have Spotify or Wimp in the states?
With those music services you get access to millions of albums for free. Legally. Not offline unless you pay a monthly fee of about 16 $ US. I expect it would be cheaper in the states. Regardless you can stream for free. And no. Not like a radio. You choose which songs. Like you would in iTunes or WinAmp. Only: The music library is H_U_G_E!

That said, I don't REALLY see the problem. Yeah, of indie music I see the issue. But as for movies or music somehow connected to/affiliated with the RIAA or MPAA however... No qualms. Download it. Why? Those people are willing to do practically anything to maximize their profit. Such as ruining simple average folk for downloading a few songs. Why should downloading a few songs, amounting to a few cents lost for the publisher - who is filthy rich - be punished more severely than much more severe crimes against the average joe?
If the law starts oppressing and harming the average citizen to benefit the most powerful... Well, then it's time to consider disregarding that law. Or at the very least: push to have it changed.

 

[benf]

A bunch of rationalizations that revolve around robin hood-esque sentiments

I think it is hilarious you have Matthew 6:24 in your signature yet use the argument of class-envy to justify your breaking of a law.

 

[TheReasoner]

I think it is hilarious you have Matthew 6:24 in your signature yet use the argument of class-envy to justify your breaking of a law.

I fail to see that I am.

How is my criticism of the MPAA and RIAA's behavior anything other than the highly justified criticism of precisely mammonism? In fact, is it not part of the reason why Sodom burned according to Ezekiel? Is it not a decent example of the government fighting for the rich at the cost of the poor? Consider, what is the punishment for downloading a few songs? It can be immense if you live in the states. So devastating it is hard to see how an individual or family can recover from such a blow.

Aren't you using "class-envy" a bit liberally now? Why is it suddenly class-envy to require the size of the punishment fit the size of the crime? Is it OK for a record company to ruin the possibility for a family to send their kid to college because said kid stole a CD in the store? I don't think so. Was it wrong? Yep. Does that mean we should allow the record store to ruin this hypothetical kid's life over it? No. That would be wrong. Defending the powerful's right to serve mammon at the expense of the less powerful is.... Something I almost exclusively see in the states though. I think you have misunderstood something. When the bible says to speak the case of the widow and the orphan, or to help the poor, somehow I do not think it meant "Let ye the powerful be given all rights. For they verily they are the victims"

If a store decided to rob a customer of his house, car, job and healthcare because said person stole something from said store I'd advocate we boicot the store. Or pick it clean. Maybe that's a vice I have. But it's the same with other people. If a person - rich or poor - decided to ruin another person's life. By rape, violence, murder or whatever I think this should have repercussions too.
The difference, and this is a big difference, is that a company or corporation consists of several people. Many people have to collectively reach the conclusion that lives should be ruined over trivial offenses. This calm and collected decision which they make together makes them much more guilty than a similar crime made in the heat of the moment. Hence I really do think the company should suffer for it. Don't you? And how is this class-envy? It's about the cool, calm, collected decision to use one's might to ruin someone else's life over even things down to a few cents profit. Is wanting consequences to such actions "class-envy"? If so sign me up for some more.

 

[TheApostleJohn]

I fail to see that I am.

How is my criticism of the MPAA and RIAA's behavior anything other than the highly justified criticism of precisely mammonism? In fact, is it not part of the reason why Sodom burned according to Ezekiel? Is it not a decent example of the government fighting for the rich at the cost of the poor? Consider, what is the punishment for downloading a few songs? It can be immense if you live in the states. So devastating it is hard to see how an individual or family can recover from such a blow.

Aren't you using "class-envy" a bit liberally now? Why is it suddenly class-envy to require the size of the punishment fit the size of the crime? Is it OK for a record company to ruin the possibility for a family to send their kid to college because said kid stole a CD in the store? I don't think so. Was it wrong? Yep. Does that mean we should allow the record store to ruin this hypothetical kid's life over it? No. That would be wrong. Defending the powerful's right to serve mammon at the expense of the less powerful is.... Something I almost exclusively see in the states though. I think you have misunderstood something. When the bible says to speak the case of the widow and the orphan, or to help the poor, somehow I do not think it meant "Let ye the powerful be given all rights. For they verily they are the victims"

If a store decided to rob a customer of his house, car, job and healthcare because said person stole something from said store I'd advocate we boicot the store. Or pick it clean. Maybe that's a vice I have. But it's the same with other people. If a person - rich or poor - decided to ruin another person's life. By rape, violence, murder or whatever I think this should have repercussions too.
The difference, and this is a big difference, is that a company or corporation consists of several people. Many people have to collectively reach the conclusion that lives should be ruined over trivial offenses. This calm and collected decision which they make together makes them much more guilty than a similar crime made in the heat of the moment. Hence I really do think the company should suffer for it. Don't you? And how is this class-envy? It's about the cool, calm, collected decision to use one's might to ruin someone else's life over even things down to a few cents profit. Is wanting consequences to such actions "class-envy"? If so sign me up for some more.

While individual crimes may not amount to much, record companies are out millions upon millions of dollars every year due to piracy, and laws against it are pretty much unenforceable. Super-strict punishments are pretty much the only detterent available. And for most people, it wouldn't amount to "stealing a CD". I know I've probably listened to several thousand dollars worth of illegally posted music. If you steal more than 1000 worth of anything, you're going to do hard time if you get caught.

 

[Canadian33]

Really good question.... Here's my thought.... When you say "illegal download" that's a term you'd hear in an anti download tv commercial. The term that we have to question is peer to peer. So if someone you know allows you to borrow a movie off them and you watch it, is that illegal? Because P2P is just more advanced. You're still borrowing off another person. Now who originally bought or whatever, that's hard to say. But ya there's some pro's and con's. Mind you the artists aren't hurting with their 8 figure per movie/album salaries. Infact I'd dare to bet that the videos that get the most P2P end up being bought way more than something that completely locked up and only sold. (if that's even possible) I think if you only downloaded all the time then you "might" be considered a tiny bit of a mooch. But if you download but you also go to movies and buy the odd book or record then I think you're well within the norm. But then again it's all personal preference. But I know I won't ever believe those propoganda commericals they have for anti P2P.