Sinful Car Ride?

[GerardMajella]

What is the difference?

One difference is that it is definitely illegal to download copyrighted music from the Internet and not pay for it.

What I did was listen to the radio, and then when the DJ would announce a song I liked, I would run over and tape it onto the tape in the tape recorder. Then I’d play it back as often as I liked.

My guess is that most of the songs recorded by you were done so unlawfully, except it would be much more difficult to enforce. Whereas when someone downloads a song illegally on the Internet, they might leave an electronic trail for the authorities to trace.

 

[ddarko]

I would echo Gerard for this question. Price is regulated by market forces. “Worth” is a relative term. A particular DVD might be worth $25 to me, but only $15 to you. Because it’s worth less to you, you’ll wait for a year or so for it to come down in price. But see, that is the key. There is no formula for determining the inherent worth of something. Movies may vary in price because of the actors involved, the director, the plot, and many other factors.

Yes, and I would ask you the same question I asked Gerard. Do you not agree that you shouldn’t charge excessively? Put laws around the music one buys that is too extraneous etc?

I think piracy is a sign of society rebelling against the business model. The public as well as artist agree that there is something wrong with the business model. Are you saying everything is ok?

You mean $1.02 per litre? Sorry, bad example. The gas companies have us over a hump and they know it. The price raises just incrementally only to enact the boiling frog principle. [/bitter ]

Um, I think you missed my point. I was just trying to show you that when the public feels that something is unfairly priced, you get unhealthy reactions which themselves might not be moral.

Are you a programmer by trade? If not, I would say it behooves you to be there to supervise the script. On the other hand, if you are a programmer by trade, you might just be able to get off of the factory assembly line with this script and get paid to install it everywhere, and get paid when someone else installs it!

I am not specifically a programmer but that is part of what I do. And no, you don’t get to automate and move on. You will just be given a different set of work. You can’t also run away with your work to start your own business because there is something called a IP agreement that you sign with the company you work for. But this is really going out of topic here.

My point is simple. Piracy is morally wrong. But so is the current business model for music. One takes away fair compensation for the artists talents while the other charges unjust amounts for the artist. The music business model is also out of date. People have no value for a CD or DVD anymore. People sometimes don’t care about a whole album anymore. They also don’t like it when their music comes protected with DRM which limits your freedom as to where and what you can play music on.

As history shows, its only a matter of time before people stand up against unfairness. Piracy is simply that reaction from the people.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

I never said that I believe in unjust compensation. When a writer writes a book, or a musician spends years developing his music, he remains unpaid throughout the entire time of his creative writing activities or music creation. It is only after the book is sold, or the music is sold, that the writer or musician is actually paid.

The residual income from the sale of published books or copyrighted music is just compensation for the years and years of work that the writer or musician did for free, without compensation.

I am not opposed to legitimate profit earned through one’s owns work efforts.

You seem to imply that residual income of any form is unjust. When someone owns real or intangible property, intellectual copyrights, or any other form of ownership, they are perfectly entitled to earn residual income from those ownership rights.

I am opposed to fraud, deceit, and theft, as I have made quite clear in my earlier posts.

Well ok lets clarify something here. By unjust compensation, I do not simply refer to “residual income” alone. That is just one aspect of how it is unjust. This is also why many artist believe that way to make more money is through performances.

Once again, taking the book example, once you buy a book, you have freedom of what you do with it. Many can read it. If the book industry was as stringent as the music industry, it would have to enforce self destruction of the book after one person read it. Thankfully they don’t and authors still live decent live. Its definitely not as extravagant as artists but they live satisfied lives. The author does not put any regulations over it. Music comes with regulations.

I wasn’t specifically referring to piracy. I was referring to norms and mores regarding theft in general across civilizations and societies spanning thousands of years.

Well ok but Piracy is obviously different. Its not the same as your everyday robbery.

You can’t use the argument that there are problems of injustice within the music industry to justify theft.

Um, if its unjust, different people have different notions of how to reply. Some might consider it appropriate to stand up to the system. So yes, its justifiable in that sense. Some people just want to make a point. Think about it, do you think people who pirate do it for profit? There are some for sure who sell their pirated music but many don’t.

No, the people who pirate are thieves.

So was Robin Hood haha.

In the case of music, a musician owns the copyrighted material. He or she owns the music. If you steal the music – regardless of whether you steal it in person or via computer — then the musician is entitled to compensation for this theft.

Did the musician loose his copy? NO he did not. So there was duplication, not stealing.

It does not matter if the musician receives residual income from the sale of the music. The musician owns the music – It is copyrighted.

Copyright is a man made concept. Its feasibility and acceptability is under test. Right now its not doing that great

If I own real estate, or a piece of income-producing equipment, I am entitled to earn income from that asset for as long as I own it. I am not required to only be paid “by the hour”. Instead, because I am an owner, I am entitled to earn income due to my ownership interest in the asset – be it real estate, copyrighted material, etc.

Correct, but if someone builds a house just like yours because your rent is too high, is he stealing from you ?

Again, in the case of a musician, he or she toils for decades creating their music, typically unpaid or earning a barely livable wage. The reward comes when the music is perfected, and copyrighted, and distributed and sold worldwide.

Oh please, let not get dramatic here. Many of these artist waste their lives away spending money on exotic drugs, cars, women and anything you can think of. Thats how much money these people have. That is one of the reasons why many people I know feel no sympathy to engage in piracy.

Your argument is implying or suggesting that the musician is not entitled to residual income from the sale of his intellectual property, because technically, the work is complete, and the musician should, instead, be paid only for the hours that he or she spent creating and recording the music itself.

Well, thats my personal opinion. The artist should make more money through concerts/performances. Thats what its about.

You are negating, however, the decades of unpaid toil, not to mention the risk associated with the music business. Many musicians toil for decades in relative obscurity perfecting their craft, oftentimes at great peril to their financial welfare. It’s a feast or famine business, like many businesses. Regardless, a musician is perfectly entitled to residual income from the sale of copyrighted material.

Well thats your opinion. I respect that and as I said before, I honour it by paying for my music. But I can’t say your opinion is universal or objective.

Also, if I may ask, are you in the music business? Because you seem to be pretty biased toward the music industry than many who I have discussed such issues with. Many people, including some artists agree that there is something wrong with the business model for music. Yet you seem to stubbornly say everything is fine.

God Bless

 

[Spirithound]

Yes, and I would ask you the same question I asked Gerard. Do you not agree that you shouldn’t charge excessively? Put laws around the music one buys that is too extraneous etc?

I’m not sure that I do agree with that. Frankly, we’re not talking about food and medicine here. People have lived for centuries without having music on demand; it’s not a natural right. If an artist charges excessively, the only person who gets hurt is the artist himself. I might be saddened for a few minutes that I don’t get to have his CD, but in the end, I would have better things to spend my money on. The market forces will regulate this.

I think piracy is a sign of society rebelling against the business model. The public as well as artist agree that there is something wrong with the business model. Are you saying everything is ok?

It would be rather naive of me to say that everything is ok, eh? Please bear with me, but let me see if I’ve got it right. The public says it is wrong that the price is so high, and the artists say that it is wrong that the public downloads the music. Is that right? What I see is wrong is that so many people feel entitled to free entertainment that they would download music they don’t even like (/would not otherwise buy).

Unfortunately, another personal factor is that I have very limited experience in business. While I see that there is something wrong, I cannot see how it can be rectified.

Um, I think you missed my point. I was just trying to show you that when the public feels that something is unfairly priced, you get unhealthy reactions which themselves might not be moral.

Ok , I think I see now. I affirm the right of people to protest, but I am also unconvinced that things have objective prices.

My point is simple. Piracy is morally wrong. But so is the current business model for music. One takes away fair compensation for the artists talents while the other charges unjust amounts for the artist. The music business model is also out of date. People have no value for a CD or DVD anymore. People sometimes don’t care about a whole album anymore. They also don’t like it when their music comes protected with DRM which limits your freedom as to where and what you can play music on.

Can you explain “One takes away fair compensation for the artists talents” ?
Thanks and God bless

 

[GerardMajella]

So yes, its justifiable in that sense. Some people just want to make a point. Think about it, do you think people who pirate do it for profit? There are some for sure who sell their pirated music but many don’t.

Stealing is never justified, even if “people just want to make a point”. In most cases, the online thief is simply trying to “get something for nothing”. They aren’t trying to make a political statement.

Did the musician loose his copy? NO he did not. So there was duplication, not stealing.

Theft of copyrighted material is still theft. You can’t say, “Oh, it’s just a copy, so I am not really stealing.” That argument won’t hold up in court, nor in the confessional.

Oh please, let not get dramatic here. Many of these artist waste their lives away spending money on exotic drugs, cars, women and anything you can think of. Thats how much money these people have. That is one of the reasons why many people I know feel no sympathy to engage in piracy.

Again, you can’t justify stealing based on a musician’s net worth or lifestyle. Stealing is stealing – You can’t justify theft based on the victim’s financial status.

Also, if I may ask, are you in the music business? Because you seem to be pretty biased toward the music industry than many who I have discussed such issues with. Many people, including some artists agree that there is something wrong with the business model for music. Yet you seem to stubbornly say everything is fine.

No, I am not in the music business. And while some people may complain about the commercial aspects of the music industry (or any industry for that matter), again it doesn’t justify theft of copyrighted material from a musician.

People can come up with all kinds of lame excuses to justify theft. As I asked before: Where does it end? Is it justified to steal from your rich employer, just because he’s rich? Of course not. Criminals make all kinds of excuses to justify their criminality. Stealing is stealing, whether in large amounts or small, whether done in person or over the computer. It’s still wrong, any way you look at it.

 

[ddarko]

Stealing is never justified, even if “people just want to make a point”. In most cases, the online thief is simply trying to “get something for nothing”. They aren’t trying to make a political statement.

How do you know? I would just say its a sign of the current business model collapsing on itself. Like I said, books have piracy. But they still sell right? right?

Your logic that thievery is always thievery is a very very simplistic view of morality. The gravity of the action changes depending on the context.

Theft of copyrighted material is still theft. You can’t say, “Oh, it’s just a copy, so I am not really stealing.” That argument won’t hold up in court, nor in the confessional.

Actually it does hold up on courts. You seem to be unaware of legal proceedings outside of U.S.

As for confessionals, they are not their for you to justify your actions. I think you clearly got that one wrong

Again, you can’t justify stealing based on a musician’s net worth or lifestyle. Stealing is stealing – You can’t justify theft based on the victim’s financial status.

Ok maybe you are not getting what I am saying. All I am saying is people will sometimes rebel against the system when they see injustice. Look at history. People rebelled against monarchies. Why do you think it happened?

No, I am not in the music business. And while some people may complain about the commercial aspects of the music industry (or any industry for that matter), again it doesn’t justify theft of copyrighted material from a musician.

Well fine, but it also doesn’t justify the music industry.

People can come up with all kinds of lame excuses to justify theft. As I asked before: Where does it end? Is it justified to steal from your rich employer, just because he’s rich? Of course not. Criminals make all kinds of excuses to justify their criminality. Stealing is stealing, whether in large amounts or small, whether done in person or over the computer. It’s still wrong, any way you look at it.

Ok with all due respect, you are dragging a needless debate by running around in circles.

Piracy isn’t justified because the artist is rich. People who justify it do it on the basis that artist are not suffering like you portrayed them to be. So stop changing the subject midway through. The point people make is that artist are being payed too much for what they do. And I think there is fair reason to listen to that complaint.

You my dear sir want to ignore one side of the problem and blame it all on piracy. You are under the illusion that everything is fine and dandy in the business model. That I condemn. You have to address both sides. Otherwise you are no better than the pirates

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

I’m not sure that I do agree with that. Frankly, we’re not talking about food and medicine here. People have lived for centuries without having music on demand; it’s not a natural right. If an artist charges excessively, the only person who gets hurt is the artist himself. I might be saddened for a few minutes that I don’t get to have his CD, but in the end, I would have better things to spend my money on. The market forces will regulate this.

Well according to your logic everything is fine right now then. Artist raises prices, he becomes unhappy. It doesn’t matter how it happens as far as your logic is concerned. It could be because his music doesn’t sell or it could be because people choose other ways to listen to his music. Simple as that.

It would be rather naive of me to say that everything is ok, eh? Please bear with me, but let me see if I’ve got it right. The public says it is wrong that the price is so high, and the artists say that it is wrong that the public downloads the music. Is that right? What I see is wrong is that so many people feel entitled to free entertainment that they would download music they don’t even like (/would not otherwise buy).

Well maybe you don’t understand the model of piracy that well. Its all about people who share without any expectation of profit. Quiet ironic isn’t it?

So yes, some of these people will share things that they personally never listen to because they think that someone else might like it.

Unfortunately, another personal factor is that I have very limited experience in business. While I see that there is something wrong, I cannot see how it can be rectified.

Very true. Its not an easy problem to rectify. I am just saying it is clear that it must be rectified just as piracy must be rectified. I am also not a business person so I would leave it to the pros in the fields to find out how to rectify it.

Ok , I think I see now. I affirm the right of people to protest, but I am also unconvinced that things have objective prices.

Well things might not have fixed objective prices, but given a buying power, I am sure you would agree that goods have a fixed upper bound. If the price of food was raised to a level unsustainable by an average person’s salary, there will be some rebelling at some point.

Can you explain “One takes away fair compensation for the artists talents” ?
Thanks and God bless

What I meant was that piracy to the extreme would give zero money to the artist which is incorrect. So Piracy was therefore clearly wrong.

God Bless

 

[Spirithound]

So yes, some of these people will share things that they personally never listen to because they think that someone else might like it.

This point is something that I had never considered.

Thank you for an interesting discussion

 

[GerardMajella]

How do you know? I would just say its a sign of the current business model collapsing on itself. Like I said, books have piracy. But they still sell right? right?

Thieves aren’t revolutionaries. They’re criminals.

Your logic that thievery is always thievery is a very very simplistic view of morality. The gravity of the action changes depending on the context.

What part of “Thou shalt not steal” don’t you understand? Call it simplistic, but God kept it pretty straightforward for just about anyone to comprehend.

Actually it does hold up on courts. You seem to be unaware of legal proceedings outside of U.S.

No, you can’t tell me that stealing copyrighted material is acceptable in “some countries”. That’s pure nonsense. Maybe on some deserted island, or a country in complete chaos. But, in general, in the modern world, copyrights, patents, and the like are very much legally enforceable and valid.

As for confessionals, they are not their for you to justify your actions.

I never said that they were. However, feel free to ask your parish priest what he thinks of illegally stealing copyrighted material from the Internet. Let’s get his take on the subject, shall we?

All I am saying is people will sometimes rebel against the system when they see injustice. Look at history. People rebelled against monarchies. Why do you think it happened?

Thieves are not political revolutionaries rebelling against a monarchy. They are, however, criminals engaged in immoral behavior.

Well fine, but it also doesn’t justify the music industry.

You can complain about the music industry all you want. It still doesn’t legitimize theft.

Ok with all due respect, you are dragging a needless debate by running around in circles.

Actually, no. I have been quite consistent in my message. If you agree that stealing is morally wrong, under all circumstances, then there is nothing more to discuss.

Answer my questions: If you legitimize theft, where does it end? If I can steal from a struggling musician, can I steal from my rich employer? If so, how much? And how often? And in what dollar amounts?

If I can download 1 song illegally, how about 2? Or 50? Or 100? How about 1,000,000? What is the “morally acceptable” limit to theft? Do tell.

If I claim to be a political revolutionary that “wants to make a statement” as you put it, can I steal anytime I want?

How about if I have a “grudge” against the music industry? Can I steal then?

What if I think the “system is unfair”? How much can I steal in that case?

Until you can clarify answers to these questions, the only rational explanation is that when you legitimize theft, there are no limits.

People who justify it do it on the basis that artist are not suffering like you portrayed them to be. So stop changing the subject midway through. The point people make is that artist are being payed too much for what they do. And I think there is fair reason to listen to that complaint.

First, I have stayed on topic this whole thread. That’s the first point.

Secondly, criminals can claim to justify their theft in a million different ways, including the suggestion that the “musician is rich, and isn’t suffering for money.” It’s a bogus excuse, and doesn’t hold up in court, nor by any barometer of morality.

Thirdly, rich musicians are rare. For every Elton John, Madonna, and Rod Stewart, there are millions upon millions of starving musicians that never get a break their entire music career, and never hit the big time. Musicians – even professional classical musicians such as violinists – struggle very much so to earn a living.

To pilfer from a struggling musician – or even a successful musician – is still theft. It doesn’t matter how rich or poor the victim is – Theft is theft.

You are under the illusion that everything is fine and dandy in the business model. That I condemn. You have to address both sides. Otherwise you are no better than the pirates

The “business model”, as you put it, has nothing whatsoever to do with theft. You can’t justify theft based on being disgusted or upset with the music industry, or any industry for that matter.

Yes, there are problems within the music industry, just as there are problems in the banking, oil and gas, and real estate industries. It doesn’t matter. It still doesn’t justify theft. It doesn’t matter how angry you are, or how disgusted you are with “the industry of music”, it’s still no rationalization for stealing copyrighted materials illegally.

(How does stealing from a musician make the music industry any better, by the way? Just curious.)

So yes, some of these people will share things that they personally never listen to because they think that someone else might like it.

Thieves sharing their booty with other thieves. How grand!

 

[ddarko]

Mr. GerardMajella,

Let me make this easier for you.

I accept that piracy is wrong but I think it can be justified. Even murder is pronounced to be wrong but even WAR is JUST at times is it not?

But anyway, my point is whether you accept that there is also something wrong with the music business model. If you don’t then you certainly are pretty ignorant and probably should be the last person talking about this issue. You seem to be like the rich kid in class who doesn’t seem to understand why the poor kid would steal one day from the cafeteria. Welcome to the real world Mr. Gerard.

My advice, go educate yourself by reading up on both sides of the issue. And if you do agree that there is something wrong with the business model, then there is nothing more to debate on. We agree.

As to how piracy contributes to change, you and I are having this conversation aren’t we? There are people in the music business who are looking in to changes in there music models as a result of piracy. Bands like Radiohead have started different ways to sell and distribute their music. There are lot more online music outlets nowadays than when piracy started. Lots have changed. You just don’t seem to be aware.

God Bless

 

[GerardMajella]

I accept that piracy is wrong but I think it can be justified. Even murder is pronounced to be wrong but even WAR is JUST at times is it not?

We’re talking about theft and stealing, not war. Let’s not confuse the two.

Secondly, if you accept that piracy can be justified, then under what conditions and when? How much can one “pirate” without crossing a morally unacceptable line? Where do you draw the line and why?

The problem with your logic is that stealing is a slippery slope. If you can pirate one record, you can justify pirating 100 records. If you can pirate 100 records, it’s really no big deal to pirate 1,000 records. What’s the difference after all? It’s just numbers.

God made it crystal clear in the Old Testament: “Thou shalt not steal.” He didn’t say, “It’s okay to steal under certain conditions, like being angry at the music industry.”

But anyway, my point is whether you accept that there is also something wrong with the music business model. If you don’t then you certainly are pretty ignorant and probably should be the last person talking about this issue. You seem to be like the rich kid in class who doesn’t seem to understand why the poor kid would steal one day from the cafeteria. Welcome to the real world Mr. Gerard.

In the real world, thieves, when caught, are prosecuted and sent to jail. It doesn’t matter if the thief is rich or poor. That’s the real world. And, yes, that includes the use of computers and related technology to steal from others. That’s a crime too. All are unjustified from a legal – and a moral – perspective.

I could care less about the “business model” of the music industry. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic under discussion, which is theft and stealing.

My advice, go educate yourself by reading up on both sides of the issue. And if you do agree that there is something wrong with the business model, then there is nothing more to debate on. We agree.

We do not agree. My advice to you is to read up on your Old Testament, and consult with your parish priest. To advocate and promote theft, with some ridiculous “fight the establishment” mentality, is plain ridiculous. Have a great night.

 

[ddarko]

We’re talking about theft and stealing, not war. Let’s not confuse the two.

Secondly, if you accept that piracy can be justified, then under what conditions and when? How much can one “pirate” without crossing a morally unacceptable line? Where do you draw the line and why?

The problem with your logic is that stealing is a slippery slope. If you can pirate one record, you can justify pirating 100 records. If you can pirate 100 records, it’s really no big deal to pirate 1,000 records. What’s the difference after all? It’s just numbers.

God made it crystal clear in the Old Testament: “Thou shalt not steal.” He didn’t say, “It’s okay to steal under certain conditions, like being angry at the music industry.”

So is war my dear Mr. Gerard. You seem to be pretty naive and unable to see the connections between things.

Where do you stop a just war? At what point is it not just? Do you argue that it can lead to a slippery slope and therefore we shouldn’t ever go to war? Nonsense.

In the real world, thieves, when caught, are prosecuted and sent to jail. It doesn’t matter if the thief is rich or poor. That’s the real world. And, yes, that includes the use of computers and related technology to steal from others. That’s a crime too. All are unjustified from a legal – and a moral – perspective.

I could care less about the “business model” of the music industry. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic under discussion, which is theft and stealing.

Yea you see people like you are why things never change. You need to look at both sides of the problem. Both camps need to make amendments to their way of thinking.

The business model of the music industry has everything to do with piracy. Where on earth have you been living?

Secondly, your real world might be limited to the US. My advice, get your head out of the gutter. You are not the center of the world

We do not agree. My advice to you is to read up on your Old Testament, and consult with your parish priest. To advocate and promote theft, with some ridiculous “fight the establishment” mentality, is plain ridiculous.

I know my old testament thank you. And my parish priest and any priest would point out to you that the issue is a legal one and not something intrinsically immoral. It is an issue with the law. Whether you like it or not, different countries have different laws.

Here is something that was posted on the Catholic Answer Forums for your reading pleasure.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=2471&highlight=download+copyright

God Bless

 

[Spirithound]

To be clear, here is one formulation of the Just War doctrine, from this website: catholic.com/library/Just_War_Doctrine_1.asp

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Is there a similar formulation for the Just Piracy doctrine?
(ps, I am not mocking you at all)

 

[Wowbagger]

Disclaimer: I did not read the last three pages. I read the first page and just started writing this reply.

This is a REALLY stupid argument. Downloading music does in no way lead to stealing actual objects from actual people that will be without the object afterwards. Come on now. This is about as silly as saying that eating meat could lead to cannibalism.

Oh, this is a fun little point I like to pull out in these threads.

Do you know something else that is technically copyrighted? Under the definitions of the Berne Convention, forum posts are copyrighted. By quoting bingbang without his written and express permission, you have committed a copyright violation, and may be held liable. You’d better hope CAF’s terms of service will shield you, GerardMajella, because otherwise bing might have you on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars!

“Fair use”, you say? A squishy provision, inconsistently applied from courtroom to courtroom. If we can get this case heard in, say, Texas, land of the patent trolls, I’m sure we can thread this case through and hit you up for damages.

Now, obviously, this law is absurd and nobody now or in the past has ever given it heed. We all quote each others’ posts, we reproduce each others’ emails without permission (through forwarding or replying), we write about copyrighted properties all the time as if we had the legal right to do so. Nevertheless, regardless of whether anyone enforces or believes in this particular law, it is the law. By your rather extraordinary logic, Gerard, your quotation of bing’s post is not just intellectual property infringement, but an act of “petty theft” that will surely lead you deep into the dark underworld of crime unless somebody can save you!

Now, I’m not arguing that downloading songs is morally licit, much less legal, nor that artists don’t deserve to be compensated for their work. But the pro-copyright side is wielding blunt moral equivalencies like lead pipes, and it’s sloppy, error-ridden thinking. There is not an equivalence, material or moral, between copyright infringement and theft. There is not an equivalence, material or moral, between downloading a song illegally and stealing a candy bar from the corner drug store. And, above all, there is not any equivalence between what is illegal and what is immoral. These conversations would go a lot further with a lot more successful moral reasoning if the copyrightists put the rhetorical weapons away and listened carefully to the subtle distinctions the anti-copyrightists are making here.

Quote my post if you agree! I won’t prosecute you!

 

[GerardMajella]

So is war my dear Mr. Gerard. You seem to be pretty naive and unable to see the connections between things.

No, I adhere to principles, and truth, as revealed in Holy Writ. Just because you disagree with my position, it doesn’t enhance your argument to personally attack me. It just makes your position all the more ridiculous, and proves my point. Only criminals use these kinds of justifications for theft.

Where do you stop a just war? At what point is it not just? Do you argue that it can lead to a slippery slope and therefore we shouldn’t ever go to war? Nonsense.

You’re off topic. Sorry.

Yea you see people like you are why things never change. You need to look at both sides of the problem. Both camps need to make amendments to their way of thinking.

So the victim of theft is to blame, eh?

Where does it say in Holy Writ, “It’s okay to steal, as the victim deserves it and is partly to blame.”

Secondly, your real world might be limited to the US. My advice, get your head out of the gutter. You are not the center of the world

More personal attacks. This time against my homeland. Nice!

You’re the one advocating theft and stealing. You just have no sound argument for doing so, and can’t provide any sound reasoning to support your statements.

And my parish priest and any priest would point out to you that the issue is a legal one and not something intrinsically immoral.

If your parish priest advocates stealing and theft, then he’s certainly not following Catholic doctrine by any stretch. Perhaps you need to find a new parish if this is the kind of indoctrination you are receiving from your spiritual advisers.

Here is something that was posted on the Catholic Answer Forums for your reading pleasure.

Off-topic. We’re not talking about “downloading free music”. We are talking about theft of copyrighted, illegally obtained music, that is knowingly taken via piracy and theft. It’s commonly referred to in police lingo as “trafficking in stolen goods”.

Under the definitions of the Berne Convention, forum posts are copyrighted.

You are mistaken. The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works took place in 1886 in Switzerland, long before “Internet forums” existed.

 

[Wowbagger]

You are mistaken. The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works took place in 1886 in Switzerland, long before “Internet forums” existed.

True, but breathtakingly irrelevant. Berne set up an extraordinarily wide definition of original, copyrightable works, and then put in place a mechanism whereby all such works are copyrighted automatically, without required registration. Forum posts fall under the Convention’s definitions of copyrightable works. That makes them copyrightable, and therefore they are automatically copyrighted.

Your argument is a little bit like saying that New York state’s ban on the use of cellular phones while driving (passed in 2001) does not apply to the iPhone, because the iPhone didn’t exist until 2007. But, of course, the iPhone falls under the cell phone law, because the iPhone meets the law’s definition of cellular phones.

Similarly, forum posts fall under the Berne Convention’s definition of copyrightable works.

The U.S. joined Berne in 1988. CAF is hosted in the U.S. You, Gerard, have violated copyright laws innumerable times within this very forum. Realize this, and a little bit of healthy moral nuance might leak into your view of the problem.

 

[GerardMajella]

Realize this, and a little bit of healthy moral nuance might leak into your view of the problem.

If you can show me any evidence – in particular, a legal ruling that has been enforced where “copying and posting” in an Internet thread – has resulted in prosecution, I might actually take you seriously.

In addition, since you claim to be an expert on copyright law, please go ahead and provide the exact legal basis for your assertion, citing the specific article of the Berne Convention referring to “copying and pasting” in Internet forums.

On the other hand, downloading illegal music has resulted in legal action. Case example: Napster, which was shut down by court order.

Similarly, forum posts fall under the Berne Convention’s definition of copyrightable works.

Your blanket assertion is not proof. Unless you can provide legal commentary to the contrary, you cannot prove your point.

I find it entirely amusing that people on this thread enjoy personally attacking me for adhering to God’s commandments against stealing and theft. Interesting, especially on a Catholic forum, of all places. Who would have guessed?

 

[GerardMajella]

Illegal downloading of music from the Internet can have serious consequences. Some production houses within the music industry are taking this theft very seriously. Here are a couple of articles from recent years:

guardian.co.uk/technology/2005/jun/25/newmedia.netmusic

independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/virgin-warns-illegal-downloaders-stop-or-face-prosecution-842086.html

And my favorite, a college warning students about the dangers of stealing music illegally online:

messiah.edu/etc/downloading.html

Here are some quotes from the link noted above:

“The majority of entertainment files made available on the internet via “peer-to-peer” or file-sharing web sites are copyright protected, which makes “swapping” or downloading these songs and movies theft and a serious violation of U.S. copyright law- pure and simple.”

“…Increasingly frustrated by the rise of illegal downloading, the music and film industries have been making examples of individual file-swappers. This spring, the music industry filed suit against four college students across the country, seeking billions of dollars in damages. This week, the music industry filed more than 260 lawsuits against individuals whom they caught downloading copyrighted music files. And the fines can be steep - up to $150,000 for each pirated song or movie (the minimum fine is $750 per file).”

“…Online piracy has cut into national music sales by nearly a third since 1999, sending record and film revenues into a downward spiral, which hits everyone in the industry hard, from the record store clerks, songwriters, and technicians, to the artists themselves. Online piracy also hurts the development of new music, films, artists and talent. And once caught downloading illegal files, the legal and disciplinary process ultimately ends up hurting the individual downloader him or herself.”

Anyone that takes even a cursory glance at the evidence, include the courts, agrees that downloading illegal music from the Internet constitutes theft. To suggest otherwise, and ignore such warnings, could have serious repercussions, including prison time.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

If you can show me any evidence – in particular, a legal ruling that has been enforced where “copying and posting” in an Internet thread – has resulted in prosecution, I might actually take you seriously.

In addition, since you claim to be an expert on copyright law, please go ahead and provide the exact legal basis for your assertion, citing the specific article of the Berne Convention referring to “copying and pasting” in Internet forums.

On the other hand, downloading illegal music has resulted in legal action. Case example: Napster, which was shut down by court order.

Your blanket assertion is not proof. Unless you can provide legal commentary to the contrary, you cannot prove your point.

I find it entirely amusing that people on this thread enjoy personally attacking me for adhering to God’s commandments against stealing and theft. Interesting, especially on a Catholic forum, of all places. Who would have guessed?

in your defense, all your quotes are cited. You quote…you are not taking others’ words and claiming them as your own. No way copywright infringement. If it were, students could not write term papers.

 

[ddarko]

No, I adhere to principles, and truth, as revealed in Holy Writ. Just because you disagree with my position, it doesn’t enhance your argument to personally attack me. It just makes your position all the more ridiculous, and proves my point. Only criminals use these kinds of justifications for theft.

Sigh, Mr. GERARD, what is seriously wrong with you? I admit that piracy is WRONG. But you have your head stuck up somewhere and want to deny that there is nothing wrong with the music business model.

Now your arguments do show that you are not fully aware of this matter. You seem to have a very naive view on this. So yes, take this personally, you need to educate yourself.

You’re off topic. Sorry.

Its not off topic. It just shows the moronic nature of your initial argument with respect to slippery slopes. You can’t say something is wrong because people might take it to the extent that its abuse. What else do you want to curtail because of this slippery slope view? How about freedom?

So Mr. Gerard, lets show some intellect here in this argument without charging things are off topic.

So the victim of theft is to blame, eh?
Where does it say in Holy Writ, “It’s okay to steal, as the victim deserves it and is partly to blame.”

Haha NO.

One can choose to disagree with laws and fight to change them. You say you are old school in your profile. Do you advocate abortion and such because its law? Do you agree with same sex marriage laws? Would you punish those who refuse to perform such ceremonies? I presume not. This is the same. People are making a stance Mr. Gerard against a business model. I agree its bad. But I also acknowledge that there is a problem with the other party under attack as well. You on the other hand are being pretty ignorant.

More personal attacks. This time against my homeland. Nice!

Hey, just saying. Right now you are the person who is giving a bad rep about your homeland.

You’re the one advocating theft and stealing. You just have no sound argument for doing so, and can’t provide any sound reasoning to support your statements.

No I don’t advocate stealing. I am simply pointing out to an ignorant person that piracy doesn’t really fit the bill of stealing that clearly. It’s not intrinsically immoral. You come to Canada, its LEGAL to download music. Secondly, there is also a reason for this rebellion. People think that the music industry is ripping them off. People consider it their way of making a stand.

If your parish priest advocates stealing and theft, then he’s certainly not following Catholic doctrine by any stretch. Perhaps you need to find a new parish if this is the kind of indoctrination you are receiving from your spiritual advisers.

I don’t switch churches because they do not agree with Mr. Gerard the great, thank you. I see the teachings as correct. There is no reason to consider downloading music intrinsically immoral.

Off-topic. We’re not talking about “downloading free music”. We are talking about theft of copyrighted, illegally obtained music, that is knowingly taken via piracy and theft. It’s commonly referred to in police lingo as “trafficking in stolen goods”.

Read carefully Mr. Gerard. I am starting to doubt your literacy now.

The person is clearly talking about “copyrighted” music that is “freely” available. He is talking about the same type of music that we are discussing here. How can you not be able to understand simple things like this? Is it because you are hell bent on wining this argument Mr. Gerard? If I was a betting man, I would say you were someone affiliated with the music industry or have someone close who is.

Or wait, maybe you are saying if music is freely available to download its not the type of piracy you are talking about? Well Mr. Gerard, I have news for you. Pirated music IS FREELY AVAILABLE. So I guess that makes it not piracy

Seriously Mr. Gerard, I am starting to doubt whether you are worth the time and effort considering you are trying to twist that answer by the apologist to fit your twisted little narrow view. Sad to hear this coming from an “Old School” Christian.

God Bless