Evidence for God from Science

i am still having trouble accepting that downloading is wrong, i admit it. but i have stop downloading until i make up my mind.

I can't believe anyone would sit here and say that downloading music is wrong. It is just mind boggling to think someone would say such a thing. Answer me this, if I loaned you a CD to burn would that be illegal? What would be any different then you coming over my house and listening to it. Point not over yet. If you then took that burned CD and loaned that to a friend, would that be any different.?? Now explain to me what's the difference with downloading it over the internet, it's just being borrowed or used from someone you don't actually physically know. And to say that it's stealing, listen to this. The original artist is not being jipped any money. Everytime his song is played on the radio he is payed, he is payed for live concerts, and he was payed to make the song. So to me, it is not considered stealing

<b>I can't believe anyone would sit here and say that downloading music is wrong. It is just mind boggling to think someone would say such a thing. Answer me this, if I loaned you a CD to burn would that be illegal? What would be any different then you coming over my house and listening to it. Point not over yet. If you then took that burned CD and loaned that to a friend, would that be any different.??</b>

They're all stealing. You're right, it wouldn't be any different, and I don't even understand why you even bothered to make these stupid points. Did you really think the people against downloading would think its ok to burn it? There are laws governing our society, and copyright is one of them. Like Jesus said, render the Caesar what is the Caesars and to God what is God's.

I'm a musician, and I've produced cd's before. It wouldn't really bother me if people made copies and shared them with friends. Most bands get 90% of their profit on tour anyways.

Do I get cd's from friends? Absolutely. I don't really see anything wrong with it. Most of the music I listen to isn't easily found in stores, and I hate ordering cd's off of the internet. I do buy things from bands when I see them in concert, even if I already got their cd from friends. I also buy shirts from bands at concerts too.

You don't care though. If a musician does care, I think their requests should be respected.

Mastermind wrote:You don't care though. If a musician does care, I think their requests should be respected.

If a musician cares then they are doing it for money, and not for music.

Yes, maybe. That doesn't change anything.

Touchí¨.

I've downloaded music from artists that have made it a point that they don't mind it. Iron Maiden for example, I know the lead singer has said on radio that he was going to play a song and he told everyone who could bootleg it off the radio to do so. I'm very deadset on buying the albums as well, the only toughie is there are 15 of them so I'll get them when I can.

I admit I have illegally downloaded games and such, I'll go delete them now

I am finding alternatives like napster (2!) (£10 a month - fully legal) it lets me download as much as I like! As for illegally downloading, it's no longer an issue for me as my Dad banned it anyway when it became seriously illegal. I see it as this -
It's like if you saw a market trader selling apples - if you had special powers and could copy an apple to your hand without stealing one - would you do it? Would he not lose the profit of selling you one or would he not lose at all?
But I do share my files - if a friend comes round and listens to my music - is that not sharing it?
How about copying CDs?
If you bought the apple and then copied it for a friend, the trader would still lose out?
Now - in a religion forum this won't go down well - I listen to Eminem sometimes - and in his song 'The Real Sim Shady' he says '"Yeah, he's cute, but I think he's married to Kim, hee-hee!"
I should download her audio on MP3
and show the whole world how you gave Eminem ..."
(Download her audio on MP3) If the one selling apples threatens to copy another's products, should he not be treated in the same way?
Think about it,
Branch from the story of the man with the apples,
Make your own decisions,
Try legal downloading,
Be good,
Be happy,
Be nice,

James

PS. What are your comments to my post?

Although I do consider some downloading illegal and also immoral, I don't agree with your apple example at all. Just because I can provide for myself does not mean that I'm stealing from someone else who provides what I need. In fact, there's no magic required at all - I have an apple tree from which I can get my apples free. Does that mean that by growing my own apples or potatoes I'm stealing from the supermarket? Of course not.

I don't think that all downloading is immoral either. I have no problem with downloading FTA TV for instance, which is by definition free. The medium by which I receive it should not matter.

I check-out Christian music on c.d.s from my local library, rip (copy) them to my computer using Windows Media Player 10, return the c.d.s to the library, and then burn the files to a blank CD-R. Is this wrong? I assume it is but I also buy the original copies from http://www.bmgmusic.com. So I guess it isn't really illegal .

Felgar wrote: In fact, there's no magic required at all - I have an apple tree from which I can get my apples free. Does that mean that by growing my own apples or potatoes I'm stealing from the supermarket? Of course not.

I totally agree with you their actually, if you were growing them yourself with all your effort that would be totally fine. I tried to make my example be like 'stealing someones efforts' so you didn't do it do it yourself.
But this story sort of branches away from music downloading now because would growing the apples yourself not be like making your own music???

What I'm trying to say is that stealing what profits others deserve is wrong - for their efforts - but growing them yourself is fine!

Thanks for your opinion,
Sorry for the confusion, my example kinda mucked up!
James

DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

Not all downloading is illegal. Sometimes artists intentionally give others permission to distribute their work. For example, Creative Commons has a suite of licenses through which people can permit distribution of their works on terms of their choice. Using a Creative Commons or similar license has the dual effect of making copying 100% legal as well as making it clear that the author is cool with copying.

For example, my brother and his friend make Christian music as "Seven Days" and release it all under a Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial license. This means that you must give them credit when you use their music, and you can't make money selling it. Otherwise most anything is permitted. There are many other license combinations available from Creative Commons, which vary in how they treat modified works and what they allow.

The Seven Days music is available at http://sevendays.home.insightbb.com

If you create music, documents, artwork - nearly anything, really - choosing a Creative Commons license is a good way to make sure people know it's OK to copy your work.

Except for computer software. There, other "Open Source" licenses have similar effects. For example, I am writing a program called BibleMemorizer that I will release under the "MIT License", which allows pretty much anything as long as the copyright notice is maintained. Many others prefer the "GNU General Public License" or GPL, which requires that any software that contains or builds on the covered program has to be under the GPL. For instance, the Sword project is a Bible study tool under the GPL. Linux is probably the most famous example of something under the GPL.

As a clarification, I will mention that I believe it is unethical to copy and distribute works without permission from the author/artist. I agree with Mastermind. I was just mentioning the case when the author/artist does choose to grant permissions.

FYI, under the Berne convention (since 1989 in the U.S., I believe) all works created by anyone except the government are automatically copyrighted whether a copyright notice is present or not. Creative Commons also has a "Public Domain Dedication" for people who don't want to have a copyright, but lawyers argue over whether it is valid or not.

For those of you who didn't follow my "MIT License" link, here it is:

Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

That should ideally be the entire license "agreement" for BibleMemorizer. See why I picked it?