Copyright Alert System

[kelvinf]

I disagree, you are willingly ignoring other consequences to other people when it comes to internet stuff but not when it comes to sex. You trained yourself to think that way because it is an easy way to rationalize immoral behaviors. It is faster and more “convenient” to assault a woman then spending years to sustain a relationship that it also includes sexual relations. Paying a prostitute could fall between the other two cases. One is immoral and illegal and the other is moral and legal, the third case could be immoral and still legal.

How can you seriously be comparing immorality with the morality of watching a TV show? Immorality, by it’s very nature is a grave matter. St. Paul said that, people should flee from immorality, cuz every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but he who sins sexually, sins against his body, which is the temple of the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor 6: 18-19) My point here is that, you just can’t compare immorality (one of the gravest sins) with something you haven’t even succeeded in convincing me is immoral.

Comparing the morality of such forms of entertainment with prostitution or rape simply shows how far you guys are willing to go in order to sell your opinions on copyrights.

This is largely a matter of opinions. That’s why in different countries, there have different laws on this (making the topic way more complex, I would say). And mother Church hasn’t thought it necessary to universally address the issue.

 

[Cristiano]

How can you seriously be comparing immorality with the morality of watching a TV show? Immorality, by it’s very nature is a grave matter. St. Paul said that, people should flee from immorality, cuz every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but he who sins sexually, sins against his body, which is the temple of the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor 6: 18-19) My point here is that, you just can’t compare immorality (one of the gravest sins) with something you haven’t even succeeded in convincing me is immoral.

Comparing the morality of such forms of entertainment with prostitution or rape simply shows how far you guys are willing to go in order to sell your opinions on copyrights.

This is largely a matter of opinions. That’s why in different countries, there have different laws on this (making the topic way more complex, I would say). And mother Church hasn’t thought it necessary to universally address the issue.

I think that I do not follow you your reasoning here. Morality and immorality is about doing right and wrong. All sin is immoral independently of the type of sin. Are you referring to immorality only when talking about sexual sins, or are using different definitions in different parts of your arguments?

Please understand that I am not try to sell my opinions on copyrights by talking about sexual behaviors, I have not expressed my opinions on copyright law, here I am just talking about sinful behaviors and how moral law works.

You have to obey the laws of the country where you live and you also have to obey the laws of the Church and the latter are universal. If there is no copyright law in your country then you do not worry about that. However, if you support someone else in breaking the laws of his country then you violate the universal laws of the Church by participating into sin eve if you do not break the laws of your own country.

 

[kelvinf]

You appear to pride yourself with your intellectual skills and you are telling me that you are not capable of guessing which is which?

Cristiano, this is a complex issue that requires complex solutions. That’s exactly what one of the Google executives said, because people are too fast to way in their opinions and possible solutions without thoroughly understanding the dynamics and technicalities involved.

Man, you just simply can’t guess whether a site is legally or not. It’s not that simple. I don’t want to press you on this. But if I am to do that, I would start by asking your opinion about the legality of the site called Google. But just leave it. And simply keep in mind that it’s very complex. Different courts in different countries all have different opinions about certain sites for instance.

In any case if you have a suspicion that a site might me illegal then you have an obligation to err on the moral side. Remember that if you think that you are committing a sinful act then you are committing a sin even if the act is not sinful at all.

That’s an inaccurate statement. I remember the guy who posted a question here on CAF to find out whether it was immoral to use Firefox plug-ins to by-pass ads. Taking that sentence of yours into consideration would mean: if he felt like he was sinning by by-passing ads, therefore he was sinning. Seriously?

Someone told him that people by-pass TV ads by simply changing the channel, or going to the toilet or muting the TV.

And those who think it’s immoral to use smartphones. So they also sin because they think using a smartphone is immoral. Many people blasted the thread, but I took it serious because I have come across people who seem to have certain opinions about smartphones and those who own smartphones. And today, when I meet certain persons, I am forced not to withdraw my phone from my pocket.

 

[kelvinf]

I think that I do not follow you your reasoning here. Morality and immorality is about doing right and wrong. All sin is immoral independently of the type of sin. Are you referring to immorality only when talking about sexual sins, or are using different definitions in different parts of your arguments?

Please understand that I am not try to sell my opinions on copyrights by talking about sexual behaviors, I have not expressed my opinions on copyright law, here I am just talking about sinful behaviors and how moral law works.

You have to obey the laws of the country where you live and you also have to obey the laws of the Church and the latter are universal. If there is no copyright law in your country then you do not worry about that. However, if you support someone else in breaking the laws of his country then you violate the universal laws of the Church by participating into sin eve if you do not break the laws of your own country.

Of course you can compare the morality of certain acts. My point is that, it’s disproportionate to be comparing the morality of watching a TV show with the morality of sexual immorality.

 

[curlycool89]

You could always publish a book without the big publishing houses. Book publishers are nothing more than quality control. You can weed through the huge amounts of garbage “published” on the internet, but really who the heck has the time or the patience? Most people seek out the big publishers because they know they will get quality.

You could publish (a very small quantity depending on how rich you were), but it was very difficult to reach anyone. With the internet and eBooks, you can reach millions of customers who can instantly buy your book.

More arrogant chest thumping by you. And you couldn’t be more out of touch with reality and economics with all due respect.

If authors releasing their manuscripts anyways, and people are buying them, then your company made a poor decision and/or is redundant. This is how capitalism works. Your company needs to adapt to the times. Oh, and, if your company really knew want customers wanted, you would have gotten the manuscript.

You sound much like the the buggy companies at the turn of the 20th century complaing about cars.

:yup:

The problem that companies are facing has nothing to do with creativity, the problem has to do with their own business model. Mega-Record companies are afraid that they are becoming more and more obsolete because they are simply not necessary anymore. These companies just don’t like the fact that their monopoly has ended.

I think that you are theologically confused. Please try to think what sin is and what sinning is. As you said there are a lot of intrinsically neutral acts that can still be sinful. I am not promoting overly scrupulous view of morality I am promoting the right view of morality that is based on three independent principles: intent, act, and circumstances. There is no emotivism in choosing to sin it simply a consequence of our free will.

No, here’s what you said:

Remember that if you think that you are committing a sinful act then you are committing a sin even if the act is not sinful at all.

What you said is that if you think something is sinful then it is even if it’s not. But that’s impossible, you cannot commit a sin when there’s no sin to commit.

And neutral acts only become sinful if used for sinful purposes. Eating ice cream is a neutral act, but if I’m eating it because I’m being a glutton then we’re into sin. But it has nothing to do with the ice cream, the ice cream is incidental to the situation and I could easily substitute chilli or chicken wings or popcorn.

 

[kelvinf]

I think I get what you’re trying to say…maybe. Smart companies have been changing the way they do business. Amazon or B&N require particular software to read their books and makes it difficult to copy. But, they allow you to read it on any of your registered devices with very little hassle. Or companies sell memberships to online video databases (Netflix, Hulu+) which allow for unlimited streaming. And other companies like Pandora & Hulu who sell advertising similar to radio & tv. You can watch them anywhere you want as long as you have computer access.

And that’s why I said that, today, people can do the same things (consume products others pay for) without breaking any law. Too many options, as long as you always have access to internet. There are radio sites where you could even choose between playlists,…

 

[ComputerGeek25]

:yup:

The problem that companies are facing has nothing to do with creativity, the problem has to do with their own business model. Mega-Record companies are afraid that they are becoming more and more obsolete because they are simply not necessary anymore. These companies just don’t like the fact that their monopoly has ended.

It use to be that printing presses, recording studios and distribution channels required expensive equipment, time and know how. Now an indvidual has the power to print, record and distribute themselves, at less time/cost. I fail to see what the issue is here…?

 

[kelvinf]

Oh and one other thing: USE PIRACY TO YOUR ADVANTAGE!!! Since it can’t be stopped, EMBRACE IT. Every time somebody pirates something of yours, you are getting free exposure and marketing, the very lifeblood of any artist’s career. This doesn’t make it moral, but since it can’t be stopped, you might as well move with the flow.

Don’t you think something is wrong with that? If folks are doing something wrong and immoral, then why would you wanna promote such actions for your own gain?

 

[Cristiano]

Cristiano, this is a complex issue that requires complex solutions. That’s exactly what one of the Google executives said, because people are too fast to way in their opinions and possible solutions without thoroughly understanding the dynamics and technicalities involved.

Man, you just simply can’t guess whether a site is legally or not. It’s not that simple. I don’t want to press you on this. But if I am to do that, I would start by asking your opinion about the legality of the site called Google. But just leave it. And simply keep in mind that it’s very complex. Different courts in different countries all have different opinions about certain sites for instance…

There is a big difference between Catholics and Google. Catholics are concerned about doing what is moral thus avoiding sin, Google is only trying to do what is legal at best. Catholics must do things within morality, companies limit themselves only to what is legal. If you were to look at the different companies code of conduct you would see that their definition of moral behaviors is truly based on legality or liability of behaviors.

…That’s an inaccurate statement. I remember the guy who posted a question here on CAF to find out whether it was immoral to use Firefox plug-ins to by-pass ads. Taking that sentence of yours into consideration would mean: if he felt like he was sinning by by-passing ads, therefore he was sinning. Seriously?

Someone told him that people by-pass TV ads by simply changing the channel, or going to the toilet or muting the TV.

And those who think it’s immoral to use smartphones. So they also sin because they think using a smartphone is immoral. Many people blasted the thread, but I took it serious because I have come across people who seem to have certain opinions about smartphones and those who own smartphones. And today, when I meet certain persons, I am forced not to withdraw my phone from my pocket.

I think that you are ignoring basic moral theology here. What is sin? Sin is separation from God, we can work on the separation through original sin or actual sin. Actual sin (venial vs. mortal) is defined by the gravity of the act (grave vs. non grave matter) and by the intention. If we choose to do what we understand as sinful then we choose to be separated from God and we sin independently on how we behave. That is why we cannot merit salvation through good works while rejecting God.

Now we can go to the next step. If you look at the letter to Romans and the First Vatican Council you will see that out faith must be based on reason. The same thing is about sin because sin is an understanding that comes straight out of our faith. If we have a reasonable understanding that and action could be sinful and we choose to pursue that act then we sin because we choose separation from God. If we have an unreasonable fear that we might be sinning then we are scrupulous and we are not sinning (act morally neutral and we do not have free will). How do we solve our issues? Through reason and forming our conscience using the teachings of the Church. Rationalization based on legalistic loopholes do not free us for the accountability of our sins.

 

[kelvinf]

Maybe you haven’t looked lately, but most major artists put their music video’s on Youtube now (one internet “label”, if you will, is Vevo). You can legally listen to a ton of songs on Youtube that artists themselves (or their representatives) have uploaded. Train or Adele for example.

Well, it depends on where you live. I am sure all of you would be surprised to hear and see the below. As curlycool89 said, today, it is common and “legal” (again, depending on the country) for artists to upload their own videos on YouTube. However, most of those videos are being blocked in Germany (if you use a German IP address). See for yourself what I see if I try to access the videos with a DE IP address:





Well, the message there basically says that the video is not available in Germany because it contains musical content that hasn’t been granted the appropriate rights by the “German music industry/PROs”- GEMA.

Apparently, if you are a performing artist, then your contact person is GEMA. And once you become a member of GEMA, you are not allowed to release your work for non-commercial purposes. That’s why Adele’s YouTube video violates the law here, because she hasn’t been granted the rights to release her work to the general public here. (In other words, she needs a “patent” for that.) She can sell her CDs though–I think it’s called private (vs. public) performance rights or so (I am not so much into the music industry).

I think it’s similar in the UK but I am not sure. But YouTube previously had a contract with these guys to have such videos available. After the contract expired and when YouTube wanted to extend it, the guys asked for more money from YouTube. YouTube felt the amount was unrealistic and hence the blockage. I understand YouTube is taking the matter to a California court but I think the ruling there would not hold any ground.

I rarely click on links to YouTube here, unless I am really curious and have the energy and time to be making extra clicks to change settings. What really amazed me was a link someone posted on one thread back in March 2011. It’s about periodic tables:

This one is being blocked: youtube.com/watch?v=r7hO-1ItqXw
While this one isn’t: youtube.com/watch?v=m8dtquYDXEU
I think it’s the same song right? I didn’t really listen to them.

 

[kelvinf]

There is a big difference between Catholics and Google. Catholics are concerned about doing what is moral thus avoiding sin, Google is only trying to do what is legal at best. Catholics must do things within morality, companies limit themselves only to what is legal. If you were to look at the different companies code of conduct you would see that their definition of moral behaviors is truly based on legality or liability of behaviors.

I think that you are ignoring basic moral theology here. What is sin? Sin is separation from God, we can work on the separation through original sin or actual sin. Actual sin (venial vs. mortal) is defined by the gravity of the act (grave vs. non grave matter) and by the intention. If we choose to do what we understand as sinful then we choose to be separated from God and we sin independently on how we behave. That is why we cannot merit salvation through good works while rejecting God.

Now we can go to the next step. If you look at the letter to Romans and the First Vatican Council you will see that out faith must be based on reason. The same thing is about sin because sin is an understanding that comes straight out of our faith. If we have a reasonable understanding that and action could be sinful and we choose to pursue that act then we sin because we choose separation from God. If we have an unreasonable fear that we might be sinning then we are scrupulous and we are not sinning (act morally neutral and we do not have free will). How do we solve our issues? Through reason and forming our conscience using the teachings of the Church. Rationalization based on legalistic loopholes do not free us for the accountability of our sins.

I get your point.

 

[curlycool89]

It use to be that printing presses, recording studios and distribution channels required expensive equipment, time and know how. Now an indvidual has the power to print, record and distribute themselves, at less time/cost. I fail to see what the issue is here…?

I know.

What we’re seeing (what you described) is that the barriers for entry into the market are getting lower. One of the cornerstones of capitalism is low barriers of entry into a market (an ideal capitalist system would have 0 entry barriers, but that’s impossible so the next best thing is “lower is better”).

I think the music labels and publishing industries are going to have to change into service industries to survive. The Music labels can provide consulting services to artists (I’m not sure if anyone has every been comfortable with the fact that music labels de facto own the people they “represent” anyways) or provide some extras (back-up bands or musicians), while book publishers can provide professional services to writers (basically editing and stuff).

 

[edwest2]

The defeat of SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and the rise of groups that support freedom of information and free exchange of knowledge. That’s the new trend I am talking about.

It’s not going to happen since billions of dollars are being lost.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

It use to be that printing presses, recording studios and distribution channels required expensive equipment, time and know how. Now an indvidual has the power to print, record and distribute themselves, at less time/cost. I fail to see what the issue is here…?

Power? As a working professional in the publishing business with contacts in Hollywood, and a friend of one of the founders of Techno-Music in the US, you are missing the point.

To everyone reading this: the learning curve will never go away. Period.

You don’t just hand somebody a guitar and tell him to play it if he doesn’t know how. You don’t just hand somebody a football and tell them they’re going to be in an NFL game tonight.

If you don’t know what you’re doing, you have no power. That’s why available digital media is flooded with junk.

Piracy is the issue.

Peace,
Ed

 

[curlycool89]

Power? As a working professional in the publishing business with contacts in Hollywood, and a friend of one of the founders of Techno-Music in the US, you are missing the point.

Does it count as an appeal to authority if you’re appealing to yourself?

To everyone reading this: the learning curve will never go away. Period.

You don’t just hand somebody a guitar and tell him to play it if he doesn’t know how. You don’t just hand somebody a football and tell them they’re going to be in an NFL game tonight.

Nobody said it would. But, it’s become easier to go independent instead of having to rely on a label. Heck, Justin Bieber was discovered on Youtube, not by some talent scout at a more traditional venue (And despite the fact that he might be hated even more then Nickelback, he’s still a hugely selling star). The “system” that your toting did not account for that.

And it’s not like labels ever did anything to train people anyways, usually they just sign people who are good self-taught musicians and singers. The biggest artificially created groups are probably The Monkees and any Boy Bands (and there are huge backlashes against bands of that type these days).

If you don’t know what you’re doing, you have no power. That’s why available digital media is flooded with junk.

Piracy is the issue.

Ed, you’re trying to draw a parallel where none exists. Piracy has nothing to do with digital media being flooded with “junk” (And really, that’s just your opinion anyways. If people are willing to pay for the stuff and it’s not immoral, then your opinion seems to be wrong).

And insiders are no longer needed to have power. Myspace was a big marketing tool for bands for a while, and Facebook is starting to do the same.

If I may tote some of my own experience, a family friend of mine is actually a fairly successful independent artist (not affiliated with any label whatsoever). So yes, they exist outside of the “official” label system. Nor is the music “junk”.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Does it count as an appeal to authority if you’re appealing to yourself?

Nobody said it would. But, it’s become easier to go independent instead of having to rely on a label. Heck, Justin Bieber was discovered on Youtube, not by some talent scout at a more traditional venue (And despite the fact that he might be hated even more then Nickelback, he’s still a hugely selling star). The “system” that your toting did not account for that.

And it’s not like labels ever did anything to train people anyways, usually they just sign people who are good self-taught musicians and singers. The biggest artificially created groups are probably The Monkees and any Boy Bands (and there are huge backlashes against bands of that type these days).

Ed, you’re trying to draw a parallel where none exists. Piracy has nothing to do with digital media being flooded with “junk” (And really, that’s just your opinion anyways. If people are willing to pay for the stuff and it’s not immoral, then your opinion seems to be wrong).

And insiders are no longer needed to have power. Myspace was a big marketing tool for bands for a while, and Facebook is starting to do the same.

If I may tote some of my own experience, a family friend of mine is actually a fairly successful independent artist (not affiliated with any label whatsoever). So yes, they exist outside of the “official” label system. Nor is the music “junk”.

Thank you for beating me too the punch and replying.

If someone goes independent that is their right, as they own the copyrights. That is why we have copyrights and patents in the first place. Ed’s arguments are getting kind of silly at this point.

Ed, most of the stuff out there is truly “junk” then you have nothing to worry about. I would go as far to say that a lot of mass produced media is junk as well. As curlycool correctly points out, piracy has nothing to do with that.

 

[edwest2]

Does it count as an appeal to authority if you’re appealing to yourself?

Nobody said it would. But, it’s become easier to go independent instead of having to rely on a label. Heck, Justin Bieber was discovered on Youtube, not by some talent scout at a more traditional venue (And despite the fact that he might be hated even more then Nickelback, he’s still a hugely selling star). The “system” that your toting did not account for that.

And it’s not like labels ever did anything to train people anyways, usually they just sign people who are good self-taught musicians and singers. The biggest artificially created groups are probably The Monkees and any Boy Bands (and there are huge backlashes against bands of that type these days).

Ed, you’re trying to draw a parallel where none exists. Piracy has nothing to do with digital media being flooded with “junk” (And really, that’s just your opinion anyways. If people are willing to pay for the stuff and it’s not immoral, then your opinion seems to be wrong).

And insiders are no longer needed to have power. Myspace was a big marketing tool for bands for a while, and Facebook is starting to do the same.

If I may tote some of my own experience, a family friend of mine is actually a fairly successful independent artist (not affiliated with any label whatsoever). So yes, they exist outside of the “official” label system. Nor is the music “junk”.

You know what? They should just close the art and music schools. This is nothing more than a reflection of a Hippie philosophy. Prior to digital media, anybody could and did do what they wanted. When I was associated with Cybotron and Rick Davis (3070) in the late 1970s and early 1980s, he had his own records pressed, distributed them himself and became quite popular by giving interviews on a popular Detroit music program that played his work.

Then the Marxist/Anarchist “corporations are evil” idea took hold.

What a lot of young creatives will be missing by assuming an attitude of separation as opposed to one of cooperation, is a lack of mentorship.

People can always do what they want, but speaking as a media professional, I have access to real data and real numbers. And I have helped mentor artists, writers and even a young screenwriter working on his first “real” script with a name Hollywood company right now. And I will continue to do so.

Peace,
Ed

 

[curlycool89]

What a lot of young creatives will be missing by assuming an attitude of separation as opposed to one of cooperation, is a lack of mentorship.

And you’re claiming that this mentorship can only be gotten through the recording industry? As in, there is nobody outside of it that could give useful advice and mentorship?

People can always do what they want, but speaking as a media professional, I have access to real data and real numbers. And I have helped mentor artists, writers and even a young screenwriter working on his first “real” script with a name Hollywood company right now. And I will continue to do so.

Well, that sounds like some of the professional advice that the “traditional” industry can continue to give.

But so far you’ve provided no argument for why distribution has to be done through the same companies. After all, we’re talking about distribution here, not mentorship.

 

[edwest2]

And you’re claiming that this mentorship can only be gotten through the recording industry? As in, there is nobody outside of it that could give useful advice and mentorship?

Well, that sounds like some of the professional advice that the “traditional” industry can continue to give.

But so far you’ve provided no argument for why distribution has to be done through the same companies. After all, we’re talking about distribution here, not mentorship.

Distribution by companies will continue to be controlled.

Peace,
Ed

 

[curlycool89]

Distribution by companies will continue to be controlled.

Yaaah, that parts not going to happen. And the companies will just have to accept that.

Again, it’s called capitalism. Many distributers, low barriers to entry.