Copying Music

  • Thread starter Thread starter PeteZaHut
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I torrent a lot of Japanese fansubbed anime television broadcasts. Some of the ones I have liked I buy when they come out in box sets in America; some never come out.

It is a grey area. Artists should be paid and they are once it is televised, but if I plan to keep it I think I should pay for it when it comes available as I do not see the ads (nor prolly could not purchase from the advertisers anyway)

I wonder about Netflix. They have a huge anime collection, but do they pay rights for all those shows they offer? And are the artists being fairly renumerated (if at all) each time a work is rented?

What about those TIVO devices that let you skip ads?

Why does age make something free use?

This is a brand new information age and the morality is important. There are 2 sides here: The importance of remunerating corps, creators/producers, distributors AND The importance of the flow of information for the benefit of mankind. Libraries are free, right?

I’m not saying the internet is at this point a giant library, just that maybe it should be one day, but the economic model has not yet caught up and needs to be a part of the equation.

At this point, I feel I should pay for shows/music I want to own make and keep a hard copy, but not for sampling if I like it, and not for information not marketed to me, but when they are marketed to me, then pay up.

Data/idea/art viewing theft is an odd concept anyway, though I recognize the need for remuneration for the providers and distributors.
 
Regardless of whether morally it is stealing, it is still knowingly violating a just civil law, especially a federal and criminal offense. The Catechism (2239) notes that it is our duty to follow legitimate authority.
 
I don’t see that information strangling to be just when taken to extreme. Not sure copying for personal use a public broadcast is a violation of that capricious law either.

A good warning though regarding respect for the law, thanks. I will pray on that and think on it too.
 
I like to make copies of CD’s myself, but for my personal use–I use the ‘copies’ when I travel and also for my car–that way if they get lost, stolen, damaged, etc. I still have the original.

I hope that’s not a sin!

–Barbara
 
I ceratinly doubt it would be a mortal sin so I don’t think there would be anything worth getting upset over.
 
St. Paul told us to obey the law and so I do, but copyright laws hardly fulfil the concept of a fair low. It has nothing to do with justice or anyone’s rights. It doesn’t protect any rights, it protects interests. It protects the interests of lobbyists. It’s not that hard to get a favourable bill pushed through a parliament, really. As such, I prefer to obey those laws, but a lot will have to happen before I start preaching about the morality of breaking them. :rolleyes:

As for artists being paid, the biggest threat is publishers, not pirates. It’s publishers who always and consistently keep campaigning for royalties to be reduced, while complaining about pirates harming the artists, not them-publishers. :rolleyes:

The RIIA kind of people are on the list of those I wouldn’t talk with. They even used a technically illegal tweaked version of Kazaa (Kazaa Lite, stripped of adware) in their search of pirates, for their own convenience (they didn’t want to deal with the ads). So this is the kind of respect they have for other people’s copyrights when they put forth their own so much.

France had a very good idea: to thwart publishers and subsidise artists from public money.

I can tell you that while maybe rock stars have money, software programmers and other authors are not among the best earning people, at all. The guy whose name you see on a game you play, might as well be earning as much as you do, or less.

It so happens that I’ll be graduating with Master’s in law this spring. I’m certainly looking forward to opening my own practice one day (though it’s going to take years before I go on my own, I suppose). However, I’m not looking forward to ever taking any case for a publisher or a media company, while I might be fond of defending downloaders and swappers in courts. Especially something like those intimidation letters from RIAA - in those cases, I would happily sue the company.

Speaking of, know what the intimidation letter is about? They write to you with some bogus claims that are far from error-proof, saying that settling with them for some $4K will be cheaper than even having a lawyer take up your case. Then they kindly suggest you drop out of school (university) to pay that. People play along out of fear, but some fight. And let them. I’ll be praying for those who fight, not for the companies - or maybe for the companies as well, but in that case not for success but for conversion. :rolleyes:

Oh, but maybe you want another story. Ever heard about restricting the fair use provisions and campaigning to have the right to backup copy waived? Ever seen copyright protection used in conjunction with poor quality media? In my view, they either want you to scratch your CDs and buy a new set instead of using copies day by day while preserving originals (which some industrious people do), or at the very least they don’t give a dime about you. I hate that kind of attitude. I guess doubling the price of software to up the sales revenue by 5% (M$ speciality) isn’t shocking enough anymore.

All in all, I’m just hoping that I’ll have a good job, but in the meantime, I do my best to find free software and use it instead of paying the greedy. For instance, I recommend OpenOffice to anyone, if only to gain some independence from M$. If you don’t play games, Linux will do fine instead of Windows. As for music, well, I just hope I’ll have a good job.
 
HopeFull_Mom said:
Look, I’m just being honest and wanting to hear what others think. If I was simply trying to make excuses as you suggest why would I bother posting here where the majority of people seem to think this is wrong.

You may happen to “know” some “musical artists” who have trouble paying there bills but the only songs I’ve ever downloaded are from very mainstream artists who, I’m sorry, you would not be able to convince me are in financial difficulty.

**If it’s wrong at all, it’s wrong no matter the financial status of the artists. **

Also, in my country, the courts ruled this sort of thing was not illegal.

A valid point.

I admited that I didn’t have a stand on this issue. I’m not convinced it is stealing. As a Catholic, though, I like to make sure I have an informed conscience.

Good. 🙂

That is why I am here to see what others say to listen to arguments on both sides.

If you would like to convince me to think like you, the last thing I would suggest is to accuse me of being some sort of thief who is just trying to make excuses for their erroneous behavior

**Indeed. A harsh word stirs up anger.
**

while whinning about your “poor” musical artist friends who are barely making it. No musical artist who had any talent would say "You can’t listen to my music until you pay for it.’

(blink)
No author who had any talent would say “You can’t read my books until you buy them.”
No shoemaker who had any talent would say “You can’t wear my shoes until you pay for them.”
No carpenter who was any good would say "I won’t help build your house unless you pay me."
Click to expand...
 
first Ive got to say copying music went on long before the internet. rememeber the cassette recorder? for those of you who are anti music sopying I pose this question. what about someone who copys ceartain music because he cant that that particuler track anyother way? mainly because that track is no longer in print. a perfect example is “heavy music” by 'bob seger and the last heard" the 5 minute version not the 2 1/2 minute version. if ole detroit bob doesnt like me downloading that , he should of left it in print. someday sooner or later this music is going to be gone, especially from the radio. Im gathering up what I can , so in my old age my choice will be , be musicless or listen to the junk the young crowd listens to.
 
HopeFull_Mom said:
Look, I’m just being honest and wanting to hear what others think. If I was simply trying to make excuses as you suggest why would I bother posting here where the majority of people seem to think this is wrong.

I said that I hoped I was wrong about my take on your post, so if that is not what you meant, why the anger?

You may happen to “know” some “musical artists” who have trouble paying there bills but the only songs I’ve ever downloaded are from very mainstream artists who, I’m sorry, you would not be able to convince me are in financial difficulty. Also, in my country, the courts ruled this sort of thing was not illegal.

You have not bothered to include your location so that it shows when you post, so I would be guessing at your country and its laws. In the US downloading songs without permission is illegal. It is just as wrong to steal from someone we think is rich as someone who we think is poor. If it is not illegal in your country, then I don’t know why you even care.

If you would like to convince me to think like you, the last thing I would suggest is to accuse me of being some sort of thief who is just trying to make excuses for their erroneous behavior while whinning about your “poor” musical artist friends who are barely making it. No musical artist who had any talent would say "You can’t listen to my music until you pay for it.’
Click to expand...
You say that you want to hear what others think, but when it looks like someone thinks your behavior might be wrong you get nasty and make cracks and assumptions about people you don’t know. If you cannot participate in a discussion without getting all heated and assuming more than was written, then I might suggest you abstain entirely.

It is up to an artist when they give their music away for free. Many of them choose to do that by giving charity concerts and by posting portions of songs from their cds online so that intelligent consumers can listen before purchase. Many talented people like many Catholic artists will never be heard on the mainstream radio stations for free because their music does not fit the programmed format or because they are not on a major record label. Even if they cannot be heard conveniently on a radio, it would not make it right to take their music for free unless they offered it at no cost.
 
Reepicheep said:
(blink)
No author who had any talent would say “You can’t read my books until you buy them.”
No shoemaker who had any talent would say “You can’t wear my shoes until you pay for them.”
No carpenter who was any good would say “I won’t help build your house unless you pay me.”
Click to expand...
When you go into a bookstore they don’t have the books locked up so you can’t read them. In Chapters, they actually have couches ext… so you can sit down and read.

I never buy shoes without trying them on and I would return a pair that was extremely uncomfortable/defective ext… and expect my money back.

I certainly wouldn’t pay someone to build a house for me if I didn’t have some sort of indication of there credentials(references,other houses they had built). I would also expect if they did a horrible, shody job building my home not to have to pay them or that if I had paid already they would refund my money.
 
You say that you want to hear what others think, but when it looks like someone thinks your behavior might be wrong you get nasty and make cracks and assumptions about people you don’t know.
Click to expand...
I DO want to hear what others think on this topic and found all the other posts quite interesting. I wanted to know if anyone had any thoughts on whether dowloading could act as advertising or whether the music industry had any facts or statistics to suggest a loss of revenue with the advent of downloadable music ext…

I DIDN’T want to be accused of stealing and only posting to ease my conscience. For someone who thinks it isn’t right to make assumptions about people you don’t know, you seem very quick to do so yourself. You didn’t hesitate to tell me I was definately stealing and even to suggested I was just trying to make excuses for my bad behavior. Was that neccesary?

If I thought what I had done was sinful I wouldn’t have done it and if I had thought it was sinful and done it anyway, I doesn’t make very much sense that I’d plead my case to those who clearly think it is wrong.
You have not bothered to include your location so that it shows when you post, so I would be guessing at your country and its laws.
Click to expand...
I don’t see why you would have to guess at my country’s laws as I told you what they are. Unless of course you are now suggesting that I am a liar as well as a thief.

I think privacy on the internet is wise, my location is not hidden due to a lack of honesty.
If you cannot participate in a discussion without getting all heated and assuming more than was written, then I might suggest you abstain entirely.
Click to expand...
I have to admit I did get a little heated, but if assuming things about others is criteria for abstaining from posting I would suggest you take your own advise.
 
Here’s a question, I have a number of christian radio dramas that I keep on my computer. I got them by borrowing them from a library but in the distant future I do intend to purchase legal copies, there are just a lot of them to buy. So is this a sin or can i keep them so long as I am slowly buying my own copies?

PS I agree that privacy on the Internet is infinitely important in the unsavory world we live in today. :cool:
 
James_Carson said:
Here’s a question, I have a number of christian radio dramas that I keep on my computer. I got them by borrowing them from a library but in the distant future I do intend to purchase legal copies, there are just a lot of them to buy. So is this a sin or can i keep them so long as I am slowly buying my own copies?

PS I agree that privacy on the Internet is infinitely important in the unsavory world we live in today. :cool:
Click to expand...
This is from the CCC:

“2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods.”

I think it would be reasonable to say that consent could be presumed as you will be buying these things in the future and they are easily accesible through the library.
 
Do libraries have to ask the pemission of authors, artists, producers to buy and lend out books, movies, cds?

Also, is it wrong to lend a book you’ve purchased to a friend, what about photo-copying a section of a book so a friend can read it?

I don’t think the issue is so black and white. Where is the line? I guess that is why the courts in my country decided that it was sharing if it was not for profit and stealing if it was.
 
HopeFull_Mom said:
Do libraries have to ask the permission of authors, artists, producers to buy and lend out books, movies, cds?

Also, is it wrong to lend a book you’ve purchased to a friend, what about photo-copying a section of a book so a friend can read it?

I don’t think the issue is so black and white. Where is the line? I guess that is why the courts in my country decided that it was sharing if it was not for profit and stealing if it was.
Click to expand...
Once you buy something you may lend or give it away as you will. The problem is with making copies to give away or lend (which, of course, might not come back).
Libraries in the UK have started a policy of paying authors a small fee every time a book is lent but that’s not the case in the US I’d say that libraries as an institution benefit authors more than they lose by having folks read their books without paying – in fact libraries are a guarantee market for books.
 
Copying music and books is not a crime in my country. All you poor people in the US have some very strange laws.

In Canada, teachers for example are allowed to copy pages of books and hand them to students. It is fair use and it makes perfect sense.

I’m very upset with they way the US is always trying to push it version of copyright law on other countries.

I also think that the hollywood and the MPAA needs to pay for its crimes. I can’t think of anything better then file sharing to make that happen.
 
I copied this from the Music Publishers’ Association website, which I found today at www.mpa.org. These laws apply for individuals as well as institutions.

"WHAT YOU MUST NOT DO!
The following are expressly prohibited:

Copying to avoid purchase
Copying music for any kind of performance (note emergency exception below)
Copying without including copyright notice
Copying to create anthologies or compilations
Reproducing material designed to be consumable such as workbooks, standardized tests and answer sheets
Charging students beyond the actual cost involved in making copies as permitted
Top of Page

WHAT YOU CAN DO!
What you can do without having secured prior permission:

Emergency copying to replace purchased copies which for any reason are not available for an imminent performance provided purchased replacement copies shall be substituted in due course.
For academic purposes other than performance, multiple copies of excerpts of works may be made, provided that the excerpts do not comprise a part of the whole which would constitute a performable unit such as a section, movement, or aria but in no case more than 10% of the whole work. The number of copies shall not exceed one copy per pupil.
Printed copies which have been purchased may be edited OR simplified provided that the fundamental character of the work is not distorted or the lyrics, if any, altered or lyrics added if none exist.
A single copy of recordings of performance by students may be made for evaluation or rehearsal purposes and may be retained by the educational institution or individual teacher.
A single copy of a sound recording (such as a tape, disc or cassette) of copyrighted music may be made from sound recordings owned by an educational institution or an individual teacher for the purpose of constructing aural exercises or examinations and may be retained by the educational institution or individual teacher. (This pertains only to the copyright of the music itself and not to any copyright which may exist in the sound recording.)"
There are also specific pages just for teachers and church musicians.

Gertie
 
Illegally copying music also hurts those who purchase music legally. As companies must now spend more and more money to protect their music (there are places researching and implementing security features in content) and also possibly raise prices to replace lost profits, those who purchase music must pay more money.
 
Gertabelle said:
I copied this from the Music Publishers’ Association website, which I found today at www.mpa.org. These laws apply for individuals as well as institutions.
Gertie
Click to expand...
Gertie - as someone who works in the education and church sheet music world: THANK YOU! :clapping:

In the office I work in some of us, including me, have music published. That means people who photocopy that music, are directly taking money from my family and friends.

I can tell you there are some bad offenders of copyright laws, and the top of the list is churches and elementary schools.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top