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.
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.
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.
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.
