A
Antonio_B
Guest
Code:
You simply recognized right from wrong and did the right moral thing to do. If there was nothing wrong with it, folks would not even ask the question, is it wrong?
Antonio :clapping:
- Status
Antonio :clapping:
A
Antonio_B
Guest
Code:
Antonio :clapping:
A
Antonio_B
Guest
Code:
I am not sure, but I think there are things which become part of the “public domain” and therefore if one copies anything from there, it is not considered stealing. In any case, if I need something I ask permission and if denied, I go on with life.
I have a photography website, mrbadillaphotos.homestead.com Now, if anyone were to go in there and download my pictures, that would be stealing. Why? Because those are my pictures. They don’t belong to anyone else. What if you see something you like and you ask me, “Hey Antonio, may I download the picture from Hana, Maui?” I say “yes” you may. That would be “borrowing” but not stealing since I gave my consent.
Did I just write all this for you? Not necessarily. I did it primarily for those who try to rationalize stealing when they should confess it in the confessional.
Antonio
H
Heathen_Dawn
Guest
Just a nitpick: it is stealing, but not what most people think. It’s not stealing music, because the people you take it from still have the music. If I have a chair and you take my chair, then I don’t have the chair and that’s stealing. But if I have an idea and you take my idea, then I still have the idea, and it’s not stealing, it’s copying. When you download copyrighted MP3s, you copy them, it’s not stealing of music, it’s stealing of profits. Profits are what the recording company no longer has. The music is still there.
Trouble is, copyright as it is today is unsuitable to the Internet age, and serves nothing but to stifle innovation. If you really want to be on the moral high ground and you’re an artist, license your works under the Creative Commons instead of full copyright.
My 2¢
Trouble is, copyright as it is today is unsuitable to the Internet age, and serves nothing but to stifle innovation. If you really want to be on the moral high ground and you’re an artist, license your works under the Creative Commons instead of full copyright.
My 2¢
P
preyoflove
Guest
Brothers and sisters in Christ:
I like to read your views about this paragraph from the article “RIAA collects fines, doesn’t pay artists” by Egan Orion for the “the Inquirer” in September 20 2003:
"The notion of copyright infringement as theft was clearly addressed in the 1985 Supreme Court decision of Dowling v. United States. While this case involved hard goods (phonograph records), Justice Harry Blackmun was most certainly speaking of abstract property (copyrights) when he wrote these words in his majority decision overturning Dowling’s conviction of interstate transport of stolen property: '(copyright infringement) does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud… The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use.’"
I’d like to read about your views of peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing, and how this court decision affects it.
I know Holy Mother Church doesn’t always agree with the court decisions. However, in this case, does She still considers it theft when the court thinks otherwise?
To Heathendawn:
Depreciation aside, profit is the difference between price and all the costs involved in producing a product. If a buyer does not purchase the product, because he or she can get a cheaper (if not free copy) of it, then not only profit but also the amount to recover from its costs is gone as well.
However, one could argue that the copy is qualitatively inferior to the product itself–which become absurd if such inferiority is negligible (a fact in the electronic media market).
Shalom, amen.
I like to read your views about this paragraph from the article “RIAA collects fines, doesn’t pay artists” by Egan Orion for the “the Inquirer” in September 20 2003:
"The notion of copyright infringement as theft was clearly addressed in the 1985 Supreme Court decision of Dowling v. United States. While this case involved hard goods (phonograph records), Justice Harry Blackmun was most certainly speaking of abstract property (copyrights) when he wrote these words in his majority decision overturning Dowling’s conviction of interstate transport of stolen property: '(copyright infringement) does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud… The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use.’"
I’d like to read about your views of peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing, and how this court decision affects it.
I know Holy Mother Church doesn’t always agree with the court decisions. However, in this case, does She still considers it theft when the court thinks otherwise?
To Heathendawn:
Depreciation aside, profit is the difference between price and all the costs involved in producing a product. If a buyer does not purchase the product, because he or she can get a cheaper (if not free copy) of it, then not only profit but also the amount to recover from its costs is gone as well.
However, one could argue that the copy is qualitatively inferior to the product itself–which become absurd if such inferiority is negligible (a fact in the electronic media market).
Shalom, amen.
T
tom.wineman
Guest
Isn’t this known as the Robin Hood syndrome?
There was a famous bank robber that used this reasoning, wish I could remember his name, but they put him in jail anyway.
L
leemarsh2010
Guest
What about downloading a song from a CD yet to be released when you plan on buying that CD when it is released?
K
Ken
Guest
Heathen Dawn:
If one copies a song that one would never buy, where are the lost profits? A song might not be worth $1 to a person, but it is worth a few clicks on a computer.
On the other hand, if one copies a song that one would nave bought, then we can make a case for lost profits.
But even if one values what is copied, one may not have enough money to buy it, and would not have bought it. So there are no lost profits.
So, if you copy music that sucks, there are no lost profits. And if you copy music you can’t afford, there are no lost profits.
Does that make the issue crystal clear?
That’s reasonable. But it gets even messier. One is not stealing profits becuase the copier doesn’t get any profits. And it is not clear that the copyright owner loses any profits.
If one copies a song that one would never buy, where are the lost profits? A song might not be worth $1 to a person, but it is worth a few clicks on a computer.
On the other hand, if one copies a song that one would nave bought, then we can make a case for lost profits.
But even if one values what is copied, one may not have enough money to buy it, and would not have bought it. So there are no lost profits.
So, if you copy music that sucks, there are no lost profits. And if you copy music you can’t afford, there are no lost profits.
Does that make the issue crystal clear?
S
Steve_Andersen
Guest
It has nothing to do with their profit or whether you would have or wouldn’t have bought the music anyhow
The copyright owner owns the music
Doing something with it without their permission is illegal
I suppose that since they still have the music after you copy it stealing may be a bad example
Trespass might be an easier analogy…if you break into a motel room and spend the night they still have the room the next day but it is still clearly illegal and still clearly stealing
The copyright owner owns the music
Doing something with it without their permission is illegal
I suppose that since they still have the music after you copy it stealing may be a bad example
Trespass might be an easier analogy…if you break into a motel room and spend the night they still have the room the next day but it is still clearly illegal and still clearly stealing
V
Vincent
Guest
Check out J. Budziszewski’s dialogue, “The Pirate”.
T
tomwise
Guest
If you only steal an apple from Wal-Mart once, but never again, is that stealing? I would say yes it is stealing.
Tom
R
rayne89
Guest
Hi, I don’t disagree that it’s wrong. What about the days when we would tape songs off the radio - would that also fall into the same category?
J
jimmy
Guest
I took the leap and deleted all my music except some classical music. I did not delete some Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, and Pachelbel. Do I have to delete these also? They all died long ago.
A
alyssa
Guest
On some works as well, copyright is void after so many years if not renewed- many of the first e-books used these.
As far as sharing- that requires the agreement of both parties. If the artist does not want his music free, it is not sharing.
As far as sharing- that requires the agreement of both parties. If the artist does not want his music free, it is not sharing.
K
Ken
Guest
Steve Andersen:
Let’s take the motel room example. Suppose a destitute homeless person sleeps on the floor and uses no towels so there is nothing for the maid to do in the morning. The room was vacant. The entire motel had a 50% occupancy rate.
Nothing was taken. The owner lost nothing. There was no opportunity cost. Under no conditions would the owner have realized revenue from that room for that night.
Who gains? Who loses?
Profit and ownership are two different things. So are profit and legality.
Let’s take the motel room example. Suppose a destitute homeless person sleeps on the floor and uses no towels so there is nothing for the maid to do in the morning. The room was vacant. The entire motel had a 50% occupancy rate.
Nothing was taken. The owner lost nothing. There was no opportunity cost. Under no conditions would the owner have realized revenue from that room for that night.
Who gains? Who loses?
K
Ken
Guest
Very few musicians hold the copyright for their work. Mozart, Beethoven, Melville, Dickens, etc are out of copyright, but one could argue that someone produced the recording you copied. They do have a copyright on that particular production by the particular orchestra that recorded it.
T
twf
Guest
In Canada, the situation is a bit different than in the US.
Canadian copyright laws specifically grant Canadians the right to make copies of musical pieces for personal use. Though it is not legal to exhbit nor distribute music. The Supreme Court, here in Canada, ruled recently that you can not be prosecuted for downloading music via filesharing systems, as you are simply making a copy of their music file for personal use. Does that mean we should all go out and fileshare? I don’t think so. There are still other ethical concerns (such as paying the worker his wages…giving the artist what is due to him), but it is not as black and white in Canada as it is in the US.
Canadian copyright laws specifically grant Canadians the right to make copies of musical pieces for personal use. Though it is not legal to exhbit nor distribute music. The Supreme Court, here in Canada, ruled recently that you can not be prosecuted for downloading music via filesharing systems, as you are simply making a copy of their music file for personal use. Does that mean we should all go out and fileshare? I don’t think so. There are still other ethical concerns (such as paying the worker his wages…giving the artist what is due to him), but it is not as black and white in Canada as it is in the US.
S
Shoshana
Guest
Code:
Blessings,
Shoshana
L
Led_Zeppelin75
Guest
lol… “Downloading is a sin”…lol. Please, it’s NOT a sin.
E
enanneman
Guest
Led Zeppelin75:
So, are you saying that if you log onto Kazaa and download Led Zeppelin’s Stairway to Heaven, you are not comitting a sin?
- Status