ChristiansUnite Forums

Where do you guys stand on digital "piracy"?  Is sharing files, despite any copyrights, perfectly acceptable use of digital technology?  Or is file sharing piracy, plain and simple?

I am torn on this issue.  I don't engage in rampant piracy myself.  I have bought, or was given as a gift, the majority of videogames and movies that I own.  But music, OTOH, I have no misgivings about downloading.  I have even gone out and boughten CD's based on what I heard on mp3's (its how I got into Newsboys).

I know Romans says we are to give everyone what we owe them.  But honestly I would never pay money for a lot of the songs I download.  So where do you guys stand on this issue?

The problem is that the "rights" are so vague that you can argue a lot of things.  The problem comes from the companies stealing from the buyers and then the buyers feeling justified in stealing "back" from the sellers.  I don't buy any music anymore anyhow so it means little to me.  The problem is with M$ and the music companies is no one is allowing you to "own" anything anymore.  You don't "own" windows you rent it and now people are trying to do the same thing with music too.  They don't want you to own it just lease it.  Problem for me is with this new DRM I can't make a legal backup of things I "own" and I don't see them dishing out new copies if mine gets ruined regardless of the fact I already paid for it.

That's my stance as of now, that is a disgruntled "buyer" so I use my rights and I don't support them.  Another gripe of mine is the putrid quality of contents that people expect top dollar for(windows for instance).  It's all tied into greed.  So as a Christian I'd have say "buy it or don't" but downloading copy written songs without permission would by law as of now (though truely vague at best) states it is illegal and hence we should not engage in these activities.

God bless,
Jason

Bloody music dowloaders are running the industry under...

I'm hoping that was a joke.  The "industry" has sucked for quite a bit now and has been declining for years.  It has more to do with garbage music and poor economy than any thing else.  That and the ridiculously greedy price of CD's.  It's pretty pathetic that music co's think we don't know how cheap it is to press cd's and get them to market.

Nope, the first problem I'm gaving is...um..."gangrene"??

Good point, Saved4, 'bout Windows, that we rent it.  Yep, if you want to put it on two computers, I understand you have to buy it AGAIN for the second one(tho they might give you a slight discount).

Microsoft seems to have the copyright thing carefully sown up, in their case.

But increasingly, Gangrene, (why THAT name?), I steer clear of anything tainted with the copyright question.  I listen to the KimKomando radio computer program; she discourages it definitely, saying they're coming to get us, even with tech'y that will detect piracy(but violate one's privacy, too).

Of course, without IP(intellectual property) protection for artists/authors/musicians/composers, the incentive for them to "create" dissolves, since IP is their source of income, and their livlihood.  At least this is how I understand it.

The funny thing is, the dolts that run the music companies have gotten so greedy they've forgotten who buys the most music.  Do they really believe there's a whole lot of people over the age of 15 listening to Nsynch or the horid lot of teeny bopper bands, or even more precisely girls?  What kind of income does this age bracket have and where do they get it from?  If they put cd's in a reasonable price bracket (eg: no more than $12) they'd sell much better again.  I know I'm not the only one who doesn't like being shafted by spending $20 for a Cd with 2 good songs.  Not that I've bought anything from the mainstream for a while now except the VERY rare instances, but regardless when I do buy something like it I get it for, guess how much?  $12 is the most I will pay for a CD.  If I know I can get decent quality CDR's for about 10cents a piece how much cheaper can the big guys get them.  I know it doesn't cost much for those slip jackets as I was in a band and it didn't cost too much for full color CD jacket.  If I recall something in the ball park of $1500-$2000 for 500(shrink wrapped and all) and it got cheaper the more you bought.  That's a whoppin $3 a CD plus the cost of recording and that was me, some joe schmoe doing it myself.

Ah it's all a ridiculous game and the best solution is to just opt out.  If we all did that they'd do something.  Hey look at the fuss we've created with "file sharing" deal!  It's funny though how you didn't see them come running to your door because you copied it for a friend on cassette a little while back.  I used to do that all the time actually I had recorded more records and stuff then I've ever "file shared".

Right… when why have more CDs been bought seen Napster first came out then ever before? How can the music dowloaders be running the industry under when the industry today is doing better then is even has before? None of the New bands complain, it is bands like Matallica who already have Millions of dollars in the bank already that whine about it. The bands that are coming up, they started out online, with free samples. Iti s either that or paying extra to make demo tapes and handing them out. These programs like Kazaa and predecessor Morphous and predecessor Napster have done nothing but helped the music industry.

$12 is the most I will pay for a CD.

...Which is why used CD stores are so nice.

I don't have a file sharing program on my computer because I have a 56k connection, and the downloads would be horrifically slow. I don't think I would use one even if I did have a better connection, because it's too much trouble and it's much easier just to go out and buy a CD. I've got nothing better to spend my money on; I'm not old enough to buy a car, and I'm too lazy and ignorant to save up for one. Plus, I'd rather feel like I actually earned the CD, rather than feeling like I stole it.

I suppose it's a matter of preference.

No I buy them brand spankin new.  I won't pay more than $9 for a used CD which I haven't bought in eons.  The music that I listen to (which is rare anymore) is independent of the blood thirsty companies and their CD's sell for as little as $10 new.


I don't either but when I did I liked to use them so I couild see how much I really liked it.  If it was worth buying then I would if not I wouldn't.  MP3's sound like crap compared to the original so it's not worth it to have a CD for of eh sounding songs.

So people would ask me that question :P

Actually its just a name I have used for years since I started multiplayer gaming (back-in-the-day).  I adopted it for message boards a few years ago.  It seems to fit my personality well enough, as I can come off as abrasive online and in multiplayer gaming I don't have problems with using el-cheapo tactics.  That, and I just like the way it rolls off the tongue.


One would hope they would just evolve their busines model.  As long as songs are broadcast over the radio a diehard mp3 collector can always copy the song from analog and not worry about getting caught.  Sure, the quality would suck, but it would be free.

As long as it's commercially available, getting it free w/o the owners knowing about is is piracy, illegal, and (in most cases) immoral. There are a few exceptions for the last one (like being about 10 years old, not selling, and unprofitable.)

Amen, Tibby! That has been my contention since the whole Napster thing started. Metallica, during the Napster hearings, had just sold 10 million copies of their latest album and had just come off a sold-out world tour. And they had the nerve to complain that downloaded songs were costing them money. Give me a break! Greedy Capitalist pigs, both them and the music industry. Eh, who cares anyway? I listen to and buy mostly Christian pop/rock. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Christian artists weren't doing much complaining about their songs being downloaded.

Not that they have a big problem with that.  Honestly, I don't think your hardcore digital pirate gives a rats rear end about Michael W. Smith.

Actually, I don't really give a rat's rear about most Christian music.

I wonder Why? ;D

Doesnt look like this thread receives much attention being so far back in the message stack but I will leave my 2 cents worth about the subject the way I see it.

I think we can all agree The record co's on both side of the aisle are greedy.

I've seen interviews where artist in the secular market complain about people downloading music, yet they come to the studio in stretch limos then leave the interview and go back to thier multimillion dollar homes and still complain about the downloading.

As far as the Christian market is concerned. The only Christian band that I heard about complaining about downloading is Pillar. This is after they went mainstream. If my opion another sell out band.

I understand full well that people should get paid for thier work. In the Christian music industry there is alot of talent and people work hard to get there message out there and for it to be purchased.

However whos message is it. Its Jesus's message put to a song. Songs that are written to Uplift HIM. Not to line the pockets of the artist. The artist will get paid. Jesus will make sure the artist with true fruit will be taken care of.

I'm glad filesharing is available personaly, without it I wouldnt have known about some of the garbage I almost paid for ,on the other hand I also discovered some of my favorite songs that I eventually bought on sale :) and with liner notes.

Cracks me up some people make a stink about downloading from filehsharing programs for free...but put a measely .50 .99 price tag on the song ok no problem gimme a break.....

For the love of money is the root of all evil.

In Christ
Rich

Downloading commercially available mp3's is illegal and it is stealing. Whether you agree with the amount the companies charge or not. The artists don't get the money for the product if they record labels and ublishers dont recieve revenue. simple as that.

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s."

Also, on thw whole subject of commercialised Christian music. I am against that for the most part. I'm totally against copyright on worship songs. Totally against it. If the songs were given by God, as the artists claim they are.. then surely the ownership is God's? Not theirs to be copyrighted.

If the songs are more for ministry or perhaps entertainment (to use an inappropriate word) then the artist is imho rightly entitled to copyright the music and to recieve payment for the recorded works.

As Rich said though, when the money becomes the goal for producing the music, they've missed the point.

Just so you know all the hymns and such that I see are all copywritten.  That's just the way it is.  Heck the only bible you can reproduce without royalties is the KJV.   ???

I think that it comes down to this though.  Although the hymns are copywritten they have given permission for others to use it.

I know they are, and I think that is very sad. Thankfully many of the older hymns have passed out of copyright now, so the words may freely be used, it is usually the music that people copyright. With worship music especially this jsut makes it difficult for the songs to be spread freely.

Being a songwriter in my spare time I've dealt with copyright a little. I used to write secular and Christian songs, and copyright both of them. I felt the Holy Spirit convicting me that to copyright my music made in the name of God was a sin, and I had to repent. While I cannot uncopyright whats been copyrighted, I won't be doing it anymore.

The whole purpose of copyrighting is to ensure that money is recieved by the author of the work in question, and that they have control over what happens to the songs. This is fine up to a point, but if songs are inspired by and written for God, then surely He has co-authorship.

Still I would never have a go at someone because they copyright a song they wrote. Its a personal conviction. However what I do make a stand against is mainstream commercialised Christian music. It is a business and nothing more. The artists and organisations try to justify their merchandise but it is clear to me that it is simply an imitation of the worlds music business. I'm not saying all people who make money out of their ministry are wrong. Its the mass producers of all kinds or paraphenalia that I'm referring to. We can all think of examples of these big organisations. It is especially wrong when their products are not truly building the church up.

! Tim 6:4  he is puffed up, knowing nothing, but doting about questionings and disputes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

5  Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
6  But godliness with contentment is great gain:

7  For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.....

9  But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.

It's a tough thing.  I agree with you that the "Christian music" scene is really a business than about glorifying God.  On the other hand, the money it costs just to produce those things, regardless of their intent, gets expensive.  Good recording equipment and the production of CD's and cover jackets gets costly as well.  I used to be in a secular band long ago before I was saved.  I'm not a stickler about what kind of music a person listens to, but I disagree with those who pretend that "Christian" music that horribly immitates secular music is to glorify God and such.  

Honestly I would want to copyright music even if it was inspired by the LORD to me because I wouldn't want just anyone to take the song and perhaps mutilate it.  I could see some secular people taking advantage of that.  Also the copyright issue becomes more of a personal issue in enforcing it.  I could simpluy require people to ask permission to use my work but not charge anything, OR even better ask that they donate to missionaries and such.  That's just me though.

Exactly, because the point of a christian band is to worship and get gods name out, You can never put a price on somone coming to christ. Thats why i think that Christian bands dont complain about thier music bieng downloaded

Or perhaps they think that any increase in popularity is a good thing. Christian music is a minority industry.. on the grand scale that is.. comared with the music of the world. Perhaps they are grateful that people are interested enough to download it and see that as a kind of loss leader .. allowing further purchases of the albums. Or.. like you say they may just genuinely be pleased that the music is getting out.

I realise how expensive music is to make, and while I don't begrudge the artists making money to cover the costs, I do feel badly towards "big business" worship affairs. I could mention a certain group in particular, but I had best not.


2 Peter 2:3  And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

The above passage keeps coming back to me, and the more I am reminded of it, the more I see it in the "church" today. there are many songs that appear ok, perhaps even doctrinally correct, but they are not inspired by the Spirit.

I use it to see if I like a band Ive never heard of or if I only like a couple of songs off of a cd Im not going to go spend 9-15$ to listen to just those 2 songs.

Yeah I do the same, I download an mp3 as a demo to see if i like the music, if I do then I buy the album, if not I delete it. I think thats fair enough. Having said that, I'm not a big downloader really at all.

Despite my views on copyright, I wouldn't download something for free because I thought it shouldn't be copyrighted. I'd still pay for it, because downloading mp3's without permission of the artist/ publisher is stealing.

I agree that we shouldn't download music for the purpose of having the music without paying for it. However, I have some curiosity about this issue. I have several channels on my television that play Christian music several hours per day. If I understand this correctly, someone can record from the television quite legally and play it as many times as they want with no law against that. The same is true of radio. I'm sure that the quality isn't nearly as good as a CD or a record, but this has always puzzled me in all of the news stories about downloading music. Does this sound curious to anyone else?

If you think about it, most of all the hits are on the radio. There is no law about recording from the radio or television, other than you can't sell it, rent it, or make money with it in any way. I'm not hinting that I think stealing music is OK, rather suggesting it is there to listen to free anyway on the radio and the television. I know that the quality isn't as good, but my ears aren't good enough to know the difference.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Psalms 31:3  For thou art my rock and my fortress; therefore for thy name's sake lead me, and guide me.