Christian teens stealing music

Denton Record-Chronicle ^ | 17 April 2004 | The Associated Press

[John Lenin]

It would scare me if they weren't downloading at the same rate ...

[liberallarry]

What media am I allowed to transmit it on? My own voice? A cassette tape? A CD? All or none? And on what basis?

The artists and recording companies expend a great deal of time and effort to produce a product they wish to sell. You think you've found a way to obtain that product without paying for it...and without calling your action theft.

Moral? Hah! Your "morality" isn't worth two cents.

[Snuffington]

Another one who can't distinguish un-accredited quotation from the accredited kind. Sad really.

Folks, there are foundations for this kind of thing, and we need to keep giving!

[John Will]

Christian Death Metal is where it's at.
Yes, It exsists.

[sinkspur]

While you whine and moan about the "theft" of downloading, millions of "thieves" will perform the act you consider ... what exactly? Is downloading music a fellony to you?

It's whatever legislators decide it is. Theft of intellectual property sounds right to me. And, if suing these miscreants will stop the practice, and recover some lost royalties for the artists, that's icing on the cake.

I'm listening to a song right now. What media am I allowed to transmit it on? My own voice? A cassette tape? A CD? All or none? And on what basis?

You should not, as a moral person, transmit it on any medium. It is not yours to transmit. If you bought the song, you can duplicate it for your own personal use.

If someone wants the music, let them buy it.

I can't believe you can't see this.

[Snuffington]

If you are fooling anyone, it is only yourself. Best stop now.

I accept your surrender.

Obviously, being on Christina Aguilara's payroll, you are not allowed be seen caving in. I understand the subtext.

[MegaSilver]

It is morally wrong if you download an entire album or something like that, but it is not morally wrong to download a copied, watered-down, imperfect version of a song when you can't buy a single in stores and you want to preview the song prior to purchasing the album. If you copy a purchased CD onto another CD that is morally wrong. Using a couple lesser quality mp3's is not.

Downloading an unauthorized MP3 is a greyer area morally. However, do keep in mind that there is no legal justification, as songs are copyrighted individually.

If it is wrong to copy a CD for non-commercial, private use, it is wrong to photocopy 20 pages out of a 200-page book.

Sorry, but that analogy doesn't work. A book is a single copyrighted entity; it is not copyrighted chapter for chapter, whereas a CD is copyrighted song by song. And for the record, it IS wrong to photocopy 20 pages out of a 200-page book, legally at least. Copyright law stipulates that up to 5% of a book may be quoted or copied, which means that you can quote or copy up to 10 pages of a 200-page book.

And photocopying....within limits of course....is not a violation of copyright. Therefore, it must be concluded that despite some differences, neither is downloading an mp3 when the downloaded number is equivalent to a fair use photocopying of a publication.

Once again, a song is copyrighted all by itself, though. The book is one single copyrighted entity.

[rwfromkansas]

And don't forget the fact that we pay a burning fee to the RIAA when we buy CD-R discs.

Don't forget that it has now been proven file-sharing does not hurt the music industry, and often helps it.

As for argument that radio is different from file-sharing, something the anti-p2p folks use a lot, they are wrong. They are also wrong in claiming photocopying a book is substantually different from file-sharing.

They say that radio pays a fee to air a song, whereas you do not to download a song, so downloaders can't bring up radio in a defense for file-sharing.

However, this argument is flawed.

Why?

Because when people download music, just like those listening to the radio in their car, we do not pay a fee to listen for over-the-air radio. The anti-downloading folks on FR or the RIAA people scream that the radio pays to play the song, while never recognizing that somebody did pay for the CD in order to upload it to a file-sharing network.

In both cases, YES, SOMEBODY DOES GET PAID!! It is NOTHING SHORT OF A LIE to try to say radio is a different situation because they pay a fee (hmmm.....I remember something in one of the commandments about not bearing false witness????!!!...hmmm). Guess what, somebody bought that CD.

Now, of course, confronted with this little fact that destroys their attempt at getting the radio argument out of the picture, file-sharing opponents will say what....let me guess...they will say that the radio controls the content and does not share their song copies with others. Once you hear it on the radio, you are done. You can't call up their song at any time you desire but have to beg them to play it. It isn't like file-sharing in which YOU can control an actual COPY of the material instead of having to beg the person you downloaded it from to play it for you like in radio.

However, again, this argument of anti-file-sharing folks fails. They do bring up a valid point that you get a copy when downloading instead of just hearing a centrally-produced product. But, you can record the stuff that is on the radio, just like you can copy a song from your CD. I did this as a little kid a lot. Just like an mp3, the sound quality is poor when you record from the radio.

Finally, the RIAA makes a big hub-ub about the fact that stations pays for what goes on the stations. However, as explained earlier, somebody also pays for that mp3 when they buy the CD. AND FURTHERMORE, WHEN I GO PHOCOTOPY SOMETHING AT HOME, I DON'T PAY A DIME TO THE PUBLISHER OR ANYBODY. So, isn't this immmoral if the RIAA is correct? I don't have to put a quarter in to photocopy at home or anything and guess what, the publisher of the book I am copying a couple pages from doesn't see one cent.

Why then is file-sharing somehow different in which our copying requires somebody gets paid?

Nobody gets paid for our photocopying if we buy a machine for personal use. Thererore, an argument that we are stealing by copying a CD is incorrect, unless of course you want to say that you steal when a book publisher doesn't see a cent from your photocopying of a book.

It is true that a photocopy is not available to millions of people like an mp3, but still, if the act of copying an mp3 is immoral and illegal, so is the act of doing the same to a book. And I could put up online in a file-sharing client a chapter of a book for people to look at and evaluate for personal purposes of whether they wanted to buy the book. I highly doubt anybody's panties would get in a bunch for this, but somehow it does for file sharing.

[Jeff Gordon]

Downloading IS theft.

Where does it say that in the Bible?

[MegaSilver]

Obviously, being on Christina Aguilara's payroll, you are not allowed be seen caving in. I understand the subtext.

What the heck?!

Dude... take off your tin foil hat, okay? I'm starting to worry about you.

[rwfromkansas]

"Copyright law stipulates that up to 5% of a book may be quoted or copied, which means that you can quote or copy up to 10 pages of a 200-page book."

I have read online (when looking into what we can quote in the newspaper) that there is no strict requirement on how much of the work can be copied......just a reasonably small portion....less than a third would be safe according to the press information I read. Not sure where you get the 5 percent figure.

[sinkspur]

Where does it say that in the Bible?

I assume your question is fascetious.

If not, condemnation of abortion is not in the Bible, either.

[rwfromkansas]

Good question.

[MegaSilver]

Downloading IS theft.

Downloading is not theft. Downloading COMMERCIAL COPYRIGHTED MUSIC AND MOVIES is theft.

[MegaSilver]

If not, condemnation of abortion is not in the Bible, either.

Well, sort of. A man would receive the death penalty if he was fighting with another man and he hit a pregnant woman on the side and caused her to miscarry.

[rwfromkansas]

Hmmmm....well, at least myself and the other college students wait to eat at the church lunches. The adults even have to get up and tell us to go since some are reluctant to get in line. However, the young kids do get up there lightning fast.

[pepperhead]

It's better than violent rap, pre-teen pop, and sadistic metal that's polluting the airwaves now.

Marginaly

[sinkspur]

Downloading COMMERCIAL COPYRIGHTED MUSIC AND MOVIES is theft.

As is reproducing any commercially copyrighted intellectual property, in full.

[Choose Ye This Day]

How about Christian gangsta rap?