Either way, I love all the free, non-copyrighted books and such. As Thomas Jefferson said, “I cannot live without books.”
I do not support existing copyright laws either. I think that their original intent is being abused. I think that the RIAA has used mobster methods in dealing with possible infringements. However, my bottom line is that I still obey the law and I am against copyright violations.
Amen to that! I still prefer Wikisource though.
Dorothy Day was an anarchist and she is slowly but surely on her way to sainthood.
Didn’t she repent of that?
I was under the impression that playwrights in Shakespeare’s time guarded their works so jealously that they often did not even write them down, lest their rivals have an easier time copying them. The only way was to attend the play (for which admission was charged) and memorize the lines as they were being spoken. Also, the idea that Shakespeare used various historical texts in his plays, while true, is analogous to an author today making his own version of Hamlet.
Do you know anything about Dorothy Day or the Catholic Workers? Anarchists is what they are.
This is correct. I am of the opinion that companies are indeed greedy, but I don’t believe in robbing them of potential profit and breaching their legal ownership rights.
The text you use as a proof was paid by lobbists (Chambre de Commerce Internationale) made only to be sure the European laws will be ACTA ready, the cabinet who made the text, TERA Consultants, is well known in France for being very partial and not very serious. Their principal source for their estimates come directly from the lobbies, here’s an example of serious of their work : they calculate the loss from a download at the same time 1 from the movies theater, 1 physical rent + 1 in VOD, 1 sale and TV passages, you known many people who see a movie both from a theater (1st month), rent the same movie both physicaly and in VOD (4th month), then buy the DVD or the BRD (at his maximum price 20€ - 25€ in France, still the 4th month) and then watch it on private network (9 to 12th month), then national network with commercial (24th month), and finaly TNT (36th month) with commercial… + in France it’s legal to rip a rented DVD or BRD to personnal use it’s de la copie privée, but thank to pressure from the USA we don’t have the right to bipass the f*****g DRM, so we are paying a tax copie privée who is the most expensive in the world, with the right to make copy but with no right to bipass DRM… va comprendre (dans les faits on s’en fou des DRM totalement).
Going home with or without a copy; what’s the difference? The movie has still been consumed without pay.I’ve read several pages of this thread but I had to give up…
I have a few things to say.
This electronic age really musses things up and creates grey areas where there should be none. It should be black and white… and really it is when you look at it with your head tilted the right way.
- Clearly it’s illegal. Haven’t you guys ever been to a movie theatre? haha. Or read the inserts in your CDs? Or have you bought a CD before?
- What is the motivation here? To have something without giving something in return… You want to watch that movie but you don’t want to pay. You want to listen to that music but you don’t want to pay… kind of not the best motivation if you ask me. Save your money, buy the thing you want to enjoy and you won’t have to wonder if it’s right or wrong.
Is file sharing a sin? Not if you’re sharing non-copyrighted material. But sharing copyrighted material is stealing and therefore it is a sin.
Someone, earlier, used the example of watching a movie at a friend’s house… your friend legally paid for that movie and when the movie is over you go home without a copy. Nothing wrong with that. When you download a movie who paid for it? Where is the physical copy of it? You don’t know because the person you’re downloading from isn’t ‘your friend’ (most likely) - it’s some nameless stranger on the internet who is distributing this file to thousands of ‘friends’. Think about that a little… it’s a totally different situation and not comparable at all. My theory? If you can’t see the physical copy you shouldn’t be watching OR listening to it. Approaching things that way should remove any ambiguity.
I used to struggle with this issue myself (a lot). I spent time in prayer, did research and finally realized that it IS illegal and it is immoral and I promptly deleted any illegally downloaded material I had then got myself right into confession.
Funny thing, my priest agreed that it was sinful as well. I’ll trust my priest thanks.
I think when people have gotten used to instant gratification and having what they want when they want it, it’s hard to hear; no. Save your money. Wait.
It’s even worse when people get used to having things for free that really they should have been paying for in the start. That’s a really hard lifestyle to give up.
I wish you all the best of luck. Most likely those who are for stealing will continue to be for it and those who aren’t will continue to be against and never the twain shall meet but who knows… The Holy Spirit moves and we all fall to our knees, music and movies blown away in the face of our Maker.
Giving it free to 1million + people? Who you don’t even know? I’m sorry but that just doesn’t make sense to me. Like I said, electronics muzzy things up… and makes grey where there shouldn’t be grey.
In the past, there used to be just one printer connected to one computer. Today, you can have many computers connected to one printer. One person can buy one printer and many, many other people can use. Again, one person buys, many consume. What’s the difference?
The question was ; is it sinful to file share, not ; is this law fair. Disobeying a civil law just because you don’t feel like adhering to it (and not because the law goes against God’s law and/or harms a person) is sinful. A law is a law and it is not interfering with God’s law therefore we have to obey it.
If you want to stick to that specific question, then the answer is obvious. It’s not sinful and it’s not illegal.
Um… it is illegal therefore it is sinful. You can’t just decide you think the law is stupid therefore it’s not illegal?