[Between the Lines]

What does the "music industry" do to justify its existence? What does it do to justify those prices?

It matters not what the music industry's justifications might be. The point is, it is not our right to decide under what conditions we can be copy a piece of music, that right belongs to the copyright owner. The fact is, unless the record company is giving it away, the person who downloaded or copied something has taken money out of someone else's pocket. If you haven't bought it then more than likely you are ethically, morally and legally in the wrong, no matter how you rationalize it.

As Christians, we are called to try to live lives of ethical and moral purity. When we copy or distribute Christian music without permission, we do more than break a petty little rule. Perhaps the biggest risks are to one's integrity and Christian testimony. Are you any less of a thief if you steal $1 or $1,000? When Christians cheat or steal, even in instances when everyone else seems to be doing it, they erase the line of demarcation that separates how Christians and non-Christians live. All unbelievers know "thou shalt not steal." Yet when they see a Christian stealing (to any degree) they feel that the Christian is no different than they are, so why should they wish to emulate or become a Christian? It not only kills the one who is stealing's witness but all Christian witness. Pirating also takes a toll on the one who participates. Growing calluses on their conscience in this area of one's life is likely to desensitize one's conscience in other areas too. Anytime we override our conscience we lessen the intensity of its voice to our spirit.

Allowing the precedent (legal, moral, or otherwise) that it's okay to take anything one wants without paying for it is clearly bad for the Church, bad for society and a bad example being placed before our children. When we copy music for what ever reason that we do not wish to pay for it, we show a willingness to sideline our morals, ethics, integrity and Christian witness, and place mammon above them all.

If you do not like the way someone does business you have the right to choose not to do business with them. And if enough people do so then maybe they will be forced to reconsider their business practices. Yet we live in a "I can't live without it" society where the ends seem to justify the means more often than not. We are called not to conform.... but to be transformed...Romans 12:2

[HarleyD]

I agree with you on downloading music that one needs to be careful of their Christian testimony.

But how about music that we do pay for and just want to make a back up so the original doesn't get ruin? Very much like software. Is this stealing? The music industry says so.

[dsc]

“no matter how you rationalize it.”

When a law is this widely and blithely ignored, you can’t write it off as “rationalization.” Something is happening. I think that what is happening is that people are thinking on some level that this system exploits them rather than serving them.

“As Christians, we are called to try to live lives of ethical and moral purity…Perhaps the biggest risks are to one's integrity and Christian testimony…they feel that the Christian is no different than they are…Growing calluses on their conscience in this area of one's life is likely to desensitize one's conscience in other areas too. Anytime we override our conscience we lessen the intensity of its voice to our spirit.”

All that is true, but there is another side to this that I think you’re not considering.

After you subtract the cost of making a CD and the musicians’ royalties, the biggest chunk of the price goes to the “music industry” people. They earn it by…by…hey, they don’t earn it. All they are is an 800-pound gorilla sitting astride the music pipeline, between musician and audience, saying, “If you don’t give me a big chunk of money, I’m cutting off the flow.”

They are able to do that because the force of law backs them up, but where is their moral entitlement to do it? What service or good are they providing to justify doubling or tripling the price of a CD? Does the public have an alternative, or is this in fact a state-sponsored monopoly?

This is no more moral than a labor union demanding kickbacks from its members. Many people refuse to obey this law because they sense that it is an unjust law. The music companies have no moral right to demand that tribute, so refusing to pay it is not stealing.

Then there is the musician. Does he have a right to demand money every time one of his recordings is copied? Without going into the subject of how out-of-control our copyright laws are, I think most people would be willing to pay musicians a fair amount in return for the use of that digital data. But the musicians are getting pinched in the struggle between the record companies and the public.

I think the public is essentially saying to the musicians, “Find a better and cheaper way to get your music to me, that doesn’t involve my enriching a pack of dope-huffing record company executives.” Some musicians already are. As much money as kids stick into video games, they’d sure pay three or five dollars to download a CD, and that’s more than the musicians are getting now.

“Allowing the precedent (legal, moral, or otherwise) that it's okay to take anything one wants without paying for it is clearly bad for the Church, bad for society and a bad example being placed before our children.”

That’s true if what is being taken is someone else’s property, rightly held. I would argue that the music companies have no moral right to demand that money.

“When we copy music for what ever reason that we do not wish to pay for it, we show a willingness to sideline our morals, ethics, integrity and Christian witness, and place mammon above them all.”

If you want to say that it’s not appropriate for a Christian to oppose a law by disobeying it, well, there are some strong arguments to be made for that position. I don’t necessarily agree.

“If you do not like the way someone does business you have the right to choose not to do business with them.”

Actually, not. The “music industry” is a government-protected cartel, which among its members engages in price-fixing and profiteering. Where are you going to legally obtain a new CD except from a member of that cartel?

Copyright was originally intended to ensure that the original composer or performer was able to make some money. Now, though, it is a bludgeon in the hands of the 800-pound gorilla that monopolizes the supply of music.

Copyright was never intended to ensure that third parties would be able to sit on the pipeline and profiteer by jacking up the price, but that is how it is being used today. With a copyrighted recording, there can be no competition. You must pay what the holder of the CR demands.

If these demands issued from the musician, then there would be some justice in it if he demanded a high price. But the high price is being demanded by the record company, which keeps the lion’s share and passes along only a fraction to the musicians. They keep the lion’s share, and they do nothing to earn it. The musician doesn’t get it, and the public doesn’t get anything extra for it. This is fundamentally offensive.

“And if enough people do so then maybe they will be forced to reconsider their business practices.”

I don’t think so. Without the armed force of the government behind it, the “music industry” could not survive in its present form. People would not pay them for doing nothing.

It is not a change in their business practices that is at issue; it is their very survival.

“Yet we live in a "I can't live without it" society where the ends seem to justify the means more often than not. We are called not to conform.... but to be transformed...Romans 12:2”

That argument rests on the premise that the music industry has a moral right to tack on their Dane geld as the music flows past them. I don’t agree.