Illegal downloads

TheApostleJohn said:

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.

Click to expand...

Are they really? I have seen some numbers that claimed the record business was ctually - at least in part - benefiting from piracy. I am not entirely sure I disagree as I know that in my case this is certainly true. As a teenager I downloaded a few songs by different artists off the web - illegally. I listened to them, and deleted the songs if I did not like them, or bought a CD with them on if I did like them. I bought dozens of CDs with this philosophy. More music than I downloaded.

I do realize that my own approach may be rare, but I doubt the loss is as significant as they claim. The business has been growing steadily and I do think it is in part to blame itself for all the piracy. It is easier to download illegally than purchasing music. And often, if you purchase it you're in fact punished for doing so. Digital rights management can in some cases deny you copying your own music to mp3 players from your CDs, or across different media players. If the music happens to get ruined you cannot re-download it free of charge either, but have to buy it again. If you pirate the music it is easily downloadable, easily copied to different devices and players, and should it get deleted it is easy as pie to download it again. If it is easier and indeed better to pirate something than to stay legal - and in terms of movies it gets worse, what with all the ads and warnings you are forced to watch before the movie even starts - then people will break the law. If the entertainment business had started to utilize the available technology more readily they could have combated the piracy more efficiently by making themselves more attractive at the same time as piracy inevitably has it's legal consequences for the perpetrators of that crime.

In addition, there is what I have already mentioned. The entertainment industry is making itself into a big bad wolf. Instead of looking to what their customers want and utilizing available technology to get more customers they not only embrace an outdated system but also punish people more for petty theft of a few cents worth than some very very serious crimes.

While I would not say people SHOULD steal from them, I say don't buy music in any way affiliated with the RIAA, or movies affiliated with the MPAA. Simply because they behave in a manner I find directly contrary to the ethical foundations of the western civilization. I will not actually support theft however. Instead: Do not buy CDs unless they are indie. Refuse to purchase anything with DRM on it, and if available choose to subscribe to music services such as WIMP or Spotify instead of buying music from stores - on or off-line.

YouTube - Weird Al Yankovic - Don't Download This Song

The bottom line of it is that pirating music breaks the law, and the bible warns us SPECIFICALLY AND DIRECTLY not to do that.

1 Peter 2
13Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.


No amount of rationalizing your choices or long-winded defenses based in class-envy are going to change the direct command here.

Again:
It comes down to where your values are. Can't obey God's law when it doesn't let you enjoy "your" music? Well, not only does that tell God that he can't trust you, but it also is going to hurt you because it is direct disobedience. You won't mock God. Somehow, someway, he will show you that he has been right.

Luke 12:34
For where you treasure is, there your heart be also.

faith guardian said:

Are they really? I have seen some numbers that claimed the record business was ctually - at least in part - benefiting from piracy. I am not entirely sure I disagree as I know that in my case this is certainly true. As a teenager I downloaded a few songs by different artists off the web - illegally. I listened to them, and deleted the songs if I did not like them, or bought a CD with them on if I did like them. I bought dozens of CDs with this philosophy. More music than I downloaded.

I do realize that my own approach may be rare, but I doubt the loss is as significant as they claim. The business has been growing steadily and I do think it is in part to blame itself for all the piracy. It is easier to download illegally than purchasing music. And often, if you purchase it you're in fact punished for doing so. Digital rights management can in some cases deny you copying your own music to mp3 players from your CDs, or across different media players. If the music happens to get ruined you cannot re-download it free of charge either, but have to buy it again. If you pirate the music it is easily downloadable, easily copied to different devices and players, and should it get deleted it is easy as pie to download it again. If it is easier and indeed better to pirate something than to stay legal - and in terms of movies it gets worse, what with all the ads and warnings you are forced to watch before the movie even starts - then people will break the law. If the entertainment business had started to utilize the available technology more readily they could have combated the piracy more efficiently by making themselves more attractive at the same time as piracy inevitably has it's legal consequences for the perpetrators of that crime.

In addition, there is what I have already mentioned. The entertainment industry is making itself into a big bad wolf. Instead of looking to what their customers want and utilizing available technology to get more customers they not only embrace an outdated system but also punish people more for petty theft of a few cents worth than some very very serious crimes.

While I would not say people SHOULD steal from them, I say don't buy music in any way affiliated with the RIAA, or movies affiliated with the MPAA. Simply because they behave in a manner I find directly contrary to the ethical foundations of the western civilization. I will not actually support theft however. Instead: Do not buy CDs unless they are indie. Refuse to purchase anything with DRM on it, and if available choose to subscribe to music services such as WIMP or Spotify instead of buying music from stores - on or off-line.

Click to expand...

It helps some smaller acts that no one would have heard of if they couldn't pirate their music. Lots of alternative acts have "given permission" for people to download their music illegally. But on balance, it doesn't help record companies.

benf said:

The bottom line of it is that pirating music breaks the law, and the bible warns us SPECIFICALLY AND DIRECTLY not to do that.

1 Peter 2
13Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.


No amount of rationalizing your choices or long-winded defenses based in class-envy are going to change the direct command here.

Again:
It comes down to where your values are. Can't obey God's law when it doesn't let you enjoy "your" music? Well, not only does that tell God that he can't trust you, but it also is going to hurt you because it is direct disobedience. You won't mock God. Somehow, someway, he will show you that he has been right.

Luke 12:34
For where you treasure is, there your heart be also.

Click to expand...

More about "Class envy"? Is that the best of your rationalization of your attacks on me benf?

How is it indicative of "class envy" to request that a punishment fit the crime, and to encourage people to stay away from products produced by those who would abuse their power for profit? Like I said before, if it is class envy to demand a punishment fit the crime then I am guilty as charged. But I fail to see that ENVY has anything to do with it. I don't want any power or wealth for myself. I am not out to get the powerful for their power either. All I want is social justice and - repeating - that a punishment fits the crime.

I wonder, why are you so quick to jump to the defense of the records companies anyway? I am not saying that downloading music illegally isn't wrong. I have been saying that the punishment for this has not fit the crime. And I have also said that IF a person or group of persons uses the law to break a person or a family's life then it is our duty as citizens in democratic nations to use our power to change the laws to ensure that such abuse of the law does not occur. The law is here to protect the people after all. Not to abuse or rob them. Yes, it is also here to punish those who do wrong. But should someone loose all realistic hope of a good future for themselves as punishment for stealing a few songs? I think not.

Hence: benf, you accuse me of being a fool and of class envy. I would ask that you show the integrity and decency to show me where I exhibit these specific traits.

faith guardian said:

...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.

Click to expand...

This is the best place to start.

You assert that the record companies are wrong for trying to protect their copyrights, or at least guilty of being overprotective.

What is the harm in them doing so? None. Less piracy, more profit. How much money they make is irrelevant to the conversation of right or wrong. We are talking about whether a Christian should break a law unnecessarily.

Can you live without music? Yes. There isn't a need to obtain it illegally. They are perfectly within reason to protect their property.

faith guardian said:

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.

Click to expand...

You are trying to imply that the consumer has some right to own and listen to music that is copyrighted at their leisure. And trying to appeal to the emotions by reasoning that the punishment is severe, and unfitting, thus not fair and acceptable to ignore.

First: You don't have the right to that music. The artist, the record label, the people who worked to make that music and market it do. You don't need it.

Second: Reasoning that since a punishment is unacceptable and only exists to make the rich richer is presuming and, frankly, of no importance to the topic of legality/obeying the law.

Are copyright infringement punishments severe? Yes. Is media cheap? Extremely. Would you rather rationalize a copyright infringement (essentially theft) and risk legal actions or spend some money on the media?

You'd rather risk the legal actions because you feel that the people who make the media don't deserve the money for doing so. You paint them as some big bad corporation using it's power and money to make more money and power for itself. Because without this idea ingrained in you, you can't feel good about stealing their property.

faith guardian said:

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.

Click to expand...

Lets just start line by line with a few fallacies you are spreading:

1. The downloaders are the victim, and the suing record companies are the bad guys.

Ridiculous. You don't have to download music. If you really want to, there is a million hours of free music out there of popular stuff. dimeadozen, zombtracker, thetradersden, etc. etc.

2. Speaking the case of the orphan has nothing to do -whatsoever- with rationalizing the breaking of law based on your personal interest.

I'm amazed that you can actually infer this. Speaking up for those who can't speak for themselves and defending the rights of the poor and needy is noble indeed. But it is incredibly laughable to assume that somebody with the internet, the ability and time to listen to music actually falls into this category. Helping the poor doesn't mean fighting for your whims and desires to be rationalized and justified. It means doing something for people who are in need, and are going without.

Are you in need and going without because you can't get your mp3s? If you really think that, try looking at some pictures of real poverty and then getting back to me with a reason why. I could use a good laugh.



Oh and in your last post where you equate the plight of the file-sharer with being on-level with something that needs social justice almost made me laugh-if only it wasn't filled with socialist rhetoric.

If you really think that file-sharers are on par with oppressed minorities and disenfranchised believers, you should really sit down and reconsider where you got such < staff edit > ideas.

benf said:

This is the best place to start.

You assert that the record companies are wrong for trying to protect their copyrights, or at least guilty of being overprotective.

What is the harm in them doing so? None. Less piracy, more profit. How much money they make is irrelevant to the conversation of right or wrong. We are talking about whether a Christian should break a law unnecessarily.

Can you live without music? Yes. There isn't a need to obtain it illegally. They are perfectly within reason to protect their property.

Click to expand...

Straw man, benf. I did not say they should not be allowed to defend their copyrights. This is something you have put in my mouth and I would have you quit that.

benf said:

You are trying to imply that the consumer has some right to own and listen to music that is copyrighted at their leisure. And trying to appeal to the emotions by reasoning that the punishment is severe, and unfitting, thus not fair and acceptable to ignore.

First: You don't have the right to that music. The artist, the record label, the people who worked to make that music and market it do. You don't need it.

Second: Reasoning that since a punishment is unacceptable and only exists to make the rich richer is presuming and, frankly, of no importance to the topic of legality/obeying the law.

Click to expand...

Straw man again. I did not reason that the punishment only exists to make the rich richer. It is a possible consequence of some of these lawsuits yes. But it is not anywhere close to the crux of the matter, and that outcome is not what I am criticizing.
I did not argue over the legality either.

benf said:

Are copyright infringement punishments severe? Yes. Is media cheap? Extremely. Would you rather rationalize a copyright infringement (essentially theft) and risk legal actions or spend some money on the media?

You'd rather risk the legal actions because you feel that the people who make the media don't deserve the money for doing so. You paint them as some big bad corporation using it's power and money to make more money and power for itself. Because without this idea ingrained in you, you can't feel good about stealing their property.

Click to expand...

This does not validate a punishment out of sync with the severity of the crime. It is NOT OK to use one's power to harm unduely.

benf said:

Lets just start line by line with a few fallacies you are spreading:

1. The downloaders are the victim, and the suing record companies are the bad guys.

Ridiculous. You don't have to download music. If you really want to, there is a million hours of free music out there of popular stuff. dimeadozen, zombtracker, thetradersden, etc. etc.

Click to expand...

What the...
What is your problem? I did NOT argue that downloading is alright. I HAVE said that the punishment should fit the crime. And I have said that punishing people too severely is immoral.

benf said:

2. Speaking the case of the orphan has nothing to do -whatsoever- with rationalizing the breaking of law based on your personal interest.

I'm amazed that you can actually infer this. Speaking up for those who can't speak for themselves and defending the rights of the poor and needy is noble indeed. But it is incredibly laughable to assume that somebody with the internet, the ability and time to listen to music actually falls into this category. Helping the poor doesn't mean fighting for your whims and desires to be rationalized and justified. It means doing something for people who are in need, and are going without.

Click to expand...

It is quite amazing that you claim I say so much I have never said. I DO think it is pertinent to criticize the legal system and the powerful companies when they do wrong.

You say downloading illegally is wrong. I agree. You say defending one's copyright is a right. I agree. But why on earth do you attack me for saying things I never said?

benf said:

Are you in need and going without because you can't get your mp3s? If you really think that, try looking at some pictures of real poverty and then getting back to me with a reason why. I could use a good laugh.

Click to expand...

Benf... I have worked among some of the poorest in the world. I know poverty. I also know very well that even the poorest in the USA - or here in Norway - are not close to that group. But that does NOT mean that if they commit a minor crime they should have their lives ruined. Should a punishment hurt? Possibly. Depending on the crime. But I fail to see that it is the intention of the law to ruin peoples' lives

benf said:

Oh and in your last post where you equate the plight of the file-sharer with being on-level with something that needs social justice almost made me laugh-if only it wasn't filled with socialist rhetoric.

Click to expand...

Okay Ben. I think we have established you are quite angry and it seems you are a little paranoid. That is a shame, especially when you try to defend that with your faith.
It is amazing that you can come up with this to attack a person (me) through a position your opposition (me) does not hold. And now you're bringing the term "socialism" into the picture. You accused me of class envy, falsely. You have in this post I am now responding to falsely accused me of a number of things, and you go on to call me stupid later on? I do not see where your anger is coming from, nor how you can draw these rather far fetch conclusions from what I have written. What is up with your fear and anger benf? I admit I am curious to know if you know what socialism is, or if you are just another American who uses the word as a label for anything "not defending the powerful".

benf said:

If you really think that file-sharers are on par with oppressed minorities and disenfranchised believers, you should really sit down and reconsider where you got such dumb ideas.

Click to expand...

Benf, this is highly fallacious. I understand that you for some reason have come to hate me for speaking up against excessive punishment. I have not said that file-sharers are on par with "oppressed minorities" benf. I have - to repeat myself yet again - simply stated that a punishment should fit a crime and when it is excessive then that punishment becomes immoral. From this you gather a rather large amount of logical fallacies with which you have attacked me as a person. If I have committed a wrong I will admit to that and seek to change. But I am not about to just suck it up and take false accusations benf.

I would ask you to please consider your words and your reasoning. Your attacks on me have been highly fallacious, illogical and emotional. I would ask you whether you consider your own method of argumentation a particularly Christian method. Are your straw men and rather far-fetch claims about me and my position what Jesus would have said and done? Maybe you based your position on a misunderstanding. I'll give you that much. But regardless of why you acted the way you have done your actions or rather words have been false and perceived as hateful. For that reason you have been reported.

faith guardian said:

It is NOT OK to use one's power to harm unduely.

Click to expand...

Stopped reading you seriously here.


Somehow you have it ingrained in you that the people who break the law don't deserve to be subject to the penalties of it.

Tell me exactly why, without reasoning the punishment should fit the crime, they should be allowed to break the law as it is convenient?

You don't get it dude. The punishment really has little to no importance when the law is being broken completely unnecessarily.


edit: this isn't a personal attack, although it could be possibly seen as one since I am arguing against ideas I see from your opinion.

Also sorry guardian for getting heated and judgmental, I was really upset by some of the ways you described my stance (only in the states, etc.).

benf said:

Also sorry guardian for getting heated and judgmental, I was really upset by some of the ways you described my stance (only in the states, etc.).

Click to expand...

Everyone can make mistakes or mis-steps. It takes a real man (or woman) to admit and apologize however. I deeply respect that, and throw in my own apologies for any statement I have made which has hurt your feelings. It has not been my intention to do so, and I was not aware I had. I am sorry.

benf said:

Stopped reading you seriously here.


Somehow you have it ingrained in you that the people who break the law don't deserve to be subject to the penalties of it.

Click to expand...

No. That is not what I said. I said some punishments far exceed what I consider just, and I don't think it is right to support the use of excessive punishment.

benf said:

Tell me exactly why, without reasoning the punishment should fit the crime, they should be allowed to break the law as it is convenient?

Click to expand...

I have not said that. Those are your words, not mine. And I will not defend a position I do not hold as if it were my own.

benf said:

You don't get it dude. The punishment really has little to no importance when the law is being broken completely unnecessarily.

Click to expand...

No benf. I "get it", I just disagree with you. And I do not think you understand my position as you have attacked straw-men pretty much the whole time, accusing me of holding a plethora of positions I do not hold.

Though what you say here is something I disagree with- I think the punishment is of high significance.

benf said:

edit: this isn't a personal attack, although it could be possibly seen as one since I am arguing against ideas I see from your opinion.

Click to expand...

Often ideas I do not hold. And I am fine with you having the position you do benf. I disagree with it, and I would love to debate it with you. Though a prerequisite is that you need to stop attacking positions I do not hold.

If you want to boil my position down it is that the punishment does not fit the crime, and that whenever someone uses their position to inflict harm on others while using the law as a defense for this we have - as I see it - a moral obligation to step in. I am not exhibiting class envy, I am not equating pirates with oppressed minorities. Nor am I arguing that crimes should go without consequences.