Is it a Sin to Download music, books or movies from the Internett?
-
Peace,
Let's remember the God is Rich, praiseworthy (5724). He doesn't need anything from us. That means that what is a 'sin/harm' is because it's to our detriment, as a society. Now what is harmful about copying/sharing music? Stealing implies one is taking something by force, and/or for monetary gains. If one is doing neither, is it still stealing?
-
Theft =/= Copying. Theft is taking away from one hand and feeding another. Selling pirated material is 100% theft. Copying, is a grey area.
Selling pirated material is theft. I agree 100%. handshake
Peace,
Let's remember the God is Rich, praiseworthy (5724). He doesn't need anything from us. That means that what is a 'sin/harm' is because it's to our detriment, as a society. Now what is harmful about copying/sharing music? Stealing implies one is taking something by force, and/or for monetary gains. If one is doing neither, is it still stealing?
Good points, and I think it's difficult to convey this message. Some people believe this is stealing. If I stole a slice of bread and ate it without paying, sure, I can call that stealing, even though I didn't sell it. But I took something, and now there's something missing from the bread-maker/seller.
Peace.
PS - I just remembered there was a member here who actually believed his posts were not to be copied or kept if he left because they were his property! D
-
Hi everyone,
From my perspective as a programmer, if I spent days working on some code or a website and someone just copied it in a couple of seconds. I would be pretty annoyed because it does take effort to write even though it is just 0s and 1s (computer language) at the end of the day. Even if they didn't make money from my code, I might have been charging for a license to use it and thats loss of income.
I think Lobster had a good post when he mentioned the Law of Universality. Which means a good way to see if an action was good or not was to imagine if everyone in the world was doing it.
Peace
Al
-
Hi everyone,
From my perspective as a programmer, if I spent days working on some code or a website and someone just copied it in a couple of seconds. I would be pretty annoyed because it does take effort to write even though it is just 0s and 1s (computer language) at the end of the day. Even if they didn't make money from my code, I might have been charging for a license to use it and thats loss of income.
I think Lobster had a good post when he mentioned the Law of Universality. Which means a good way to see if an action was good or not was to imagine if everyone in the world was doing it.
Peace
Al
Exactly.
The quran instructs us to give full measure, and full measure is a = b, not b = 0 or b = a + 5% APR.
-
Peace all
I asked Edip about this issue a while back and his answer seemed very reasonable to me.
To sum up he said/suggested that if the item is important enough that had the an alternative way not been available to obtain the item that you would go out and buy it, then one should not copy/download/do anything illegal to attain it because then you are preventing yourself from purchasing a version which would have benefited financialy the artist, record company or anyone who was involved in the making and producing.
But if you wouldn't buy the CD if there was no alternative way of getting it, then possible you would not be damaging the artist as you would not have bought the CD anyway but you downloaded as it was convinient.
-
Peace aalmakto,
You make an interesting case. I have some questions, out of curiousity...
From my perspective as a programmer, if I spent days working on some code or a website and someone just copied it in a couple of seconds. I would be pretty annoyed because it does take effort to write even though it is just 0s and 1s (computer language) at the end of the day.
Do you believe something was stolen from you?.. that you've been robbed? If they weren't going to buy the software anyway, do you think somehow it would have 'lessened' your work? What if you wrote the program and spent months on it, and no one bought it (plus no one downloaded it) at all... would you still be annoyed? What if you sold 10 million copies, and one guy downloaded without paying, would you still be "annoyed"?I might have been charging for a license to use it and thats loss of income.
How do you figure that? ??? Remember, we're talking about a guy who couldn't afford the software or code, and wasn't going to buy one. So how have you LOST INCOME?Peace
-
But if you wouldn't buy the CD if there was no alternative way of getting it, then possible you would not be damaging the artist as you would not have bought the CD anyway but you downloaded as it was convinient.
I think if we're talking about it being a sin, then it should be wrong either way. I mean I totally understand that theory, there are songs I've been willing to buy but they are not available in the U.S. Even through online stores. But again, if it applies to the first case, it should apply to the second.
peace
-
Peace aalmakto,
You make an interesting case. I have some questions, out of curiousity... )Do you believe something was stolen from you?.. that you've been robbed? If they weren't going to buy the software anyway, do you think somehow it would have 'lessened' your work? What if you wrote the program and spent months on it, and no one bought it (plus no one downloaded it) at all... would you still be annoyed? What if you sold 10 million copies, and one guy downloaded without paying, would you still be "annoyed"?How do you figure that? ??? Remember, we're talking about a guy who couldn't afford the software or code, and wasn't going to buy one. So how have you LOST INCOME?
Peace )
Rich enough to afford an internet connection, placing yoiu in the upper 3% of the world's population? Rich enough to pay full measure. Period.
Either way, you'll reap what you sow.
-
Well you can't buy the 800 or 1000 dolars or more programs. But that is for pros. -\ So no need for me, for example, to download adobe after effects if i don't plan to use it on a big project, i could get the personal edition or somekind of study edition.
What about dead artists?
-
By the way, with regards to pirating software, there is NO EXCUSE whatsoever. There is an entire body of free, open-source software from GNU from OSes to calculators for as long as PCs were relevant.
Can't say I'm innocent, but I'm migrating ASAP.
-
Also there is a little thing that bugs me when you buy a copy of windows or whatever, you supposedly can't even share it with your brother or dad, he has to get another copy. I wonder if it's still the case with vista, but i remenber seeing apple giving something like 3 or 4 liscences for their OS when you buy one. Here i found it http//store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=F4F31E5&fnode=home&nplm=MB022Z/A
It's not as overpriced as vista, and you get 5 liscences.
-
Peace aalmakto,
You make an interesting case. I have some questions, out of curiousity... )Do you believe something was stolen from you?.. that you've been robbed? If they weren't going to buy the software anyway, do you think somehow it would have 'lessened' your work? What if you wrote the program and spent months on it, and no one bought it (plus no one downloaded it) at all... would you still be annoyed? What if you sold 10 million copies, and one guy downloaded without paying, would you still be "annoyed"?How do you figure that? ??? Remember, we're talking about a guy who couldn't afford the software or code, and wasn't going to buy one. So how have you LOST INCOME?
Peace )
Peace Zenje
Hypothetically, if someone took my work without paying the price I have set, then I think that would be stealing. OPF mentioned opensource work, which is exactly how I would license my code if I wanted to give it away. But people still try and make money from opensource by offering services (help manuals, consulting, releasing books) etc. so the motives are not always 100% altruistic. I am not familiar with the phrase work being "lessened by piracy". I guess it has to do with motive, if the motive is to advance the artform, then the author should be pleased that people are downloading it. But if the motive for creating the work was to make a living, then the situation is different. Ultimately, if the person can't afford my software, he/she can code it themselves. Buying code pays the programmer for the time, marketing, logic spent on designing the program.hope this makes sense yes
Al
-
Peace aalmakto,
Thanks for your reply, I understand what you're saying and I agree with parts of it.
I don't understand why you feel that someone stole something from you, when you have everything you started with to begin with. From before the person downloaded, to after, you didn't lose anything. If, for example, you wrote this code down on paper and someone came and took it away, which would mean you would be stuck and have to start all over again, or maybe not even be able to duplicate the work, then it would make sense to me. I don't know, maybe it's just me. But if someone stole something from me, it would have to be something tangible in a way, something that I would have lost. Something that I would no longer have. Am I making sense?
That's why I said at the beginning that, we can't give examples or compare this to anything other than what's written here; music, software, online books. IMHO, the person who sang the song or the company that published it, etc... are not losing something, because they didn't have it in the first place.
In the end, truth be told, all this is about making lots and lots of money. The millions of dollars that one artist makes, is no longer enough, he 'needs' that 7th house in Malibu and we have to pay for it. And by the way, that music is still being paid for (by advertisers and ultimately by the consumer), even on radio.
peace
-
Peace aalmakto,
Thanks for your reply, I understand what you're saying and I agree with parts of it.
I don't understand why you feel that someone stole something from you, when you have everything you started with to begin with. From before the person downloaded, to after, you didn't lose anything. If, for example, you wrote this code down on paper and someone came and took it away, which would mean you would be stuck and have to start all over again, or maybe not even be able to duplicate the work, then it would make sense to me. I don't know, maybe it's just me. But if someone stole something from me, it would have to be something tangible in a way, something that I would have lost. Something that I would no longer have. Am I making sense?
That's why I said at the beginning that, we can't give examples or compare this to anything other than what's written here; music, software, online books. IMHO, the person who sang the song or the company that published it, etc... are not losing something, because they didn't have it in the first place.
In the end, truth be told, all this is about making lots and lots of money. The millions of dollars that one artist makes, is no longer enough, he 'needs' that 7th house in Malibu and we have to pay for it. And by the way, that music is still being paid for (by advertisers and ultimately by the consumer), even on radio.
peace
Peace zenje,
It makes sense why you might not classify it as stealing. hmm... lets say you didn't write the program. But paid people money to write the program, would it be fair for the people who made the program to give away free copies since they already have it? By this example I'm just trying to establish that the owner of the code has some rights as to how it can be distributed.Yes its not a big loss zenje if people copy, but if everyone did it that can put alot of people out of business.
I think the issue of rich artists with 7 houses has to do with greed.
Take care
Al -
Also there is a little thing that bugs me when you buy a copy of windows or whatever, you supposedly can't even share it with your brother or dad, he has to get another copy. I wonder if it's still the case with vista, but i remenber seeing apple giving something like 3 or 4 liscences for their OS when you buy one. Here i found it http//store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=F4F31E5&fnode=home&nplm=MB022Z/A
It's not as overpriced as vista, and you get 5 liscences.
No, the rule is ONE instance of the OS (actually, one on a desktop and one on a portable PC such as a laptop or tablet PC) can be running at any time. You can install it X amount of times on different PCs, but only one of those instances is legal. When you purchase something physical, you get ONE item. You can lend your car to a friend, doesn't mean you can both drive it at the same time on opposing sides of the world (If you do know a way, PLEASE contact me ASAP and I'll cite your name in the journal rotfl), this is roughly what MS (or M$) is trying to do.
Apple has an entirely different philosophy (Microsoft's philosophy - 10 years), target audience (see prev.), and so on. Apple has a much smaller userbase and their OS is restricted to Apple hardware in any case, meaning it is guaranteed money for them.
Good points/question Yosemite. )OPF, one word - LIBRARY. !
The quran states you should uphold any contracts declared between you and a fellow human, correct? When you enter a library, you are essentially agreeing that you will not commit illegal activities in there - don't like it? It was an active decision to enter the library on your part, your fault and nobody else's. Libraries usually have bandwidth usage policies, and on here, the "theft" is two-fold, one genuine theft by depriving the library of bandwidth (assuming they get charged per unit as is usually the case) and another "theft" which is the grey area here. But the grey area is already illegal according to the library, being a government funded institution, and hence, by downloading, you commit 3 "crimes"/sins - excessive and unwarranted usage of bandwidth, breach of contract and possibly, theft of software/other items. I'm sure you can think of what else you would be violating by the act of going into a library to download software. Then, you have to afford a computer in any case, still placing you in the top x% of the world.
In any case, one of the things I've realised over the years is that piracy contributes directly to electronic fascism and by extension, to REAL WORLD FASCISM, in an increasingly digital/computerised age. When DOS started off, there were ZERO restrictions on its usage aside from the standard license. Same with Windows 95 and Windows 98. Moving to NT4/5, all these restrictions came flooding in, music was coming loaded with DRM (which does take CPU time off your PC depending on the software) and in Sony's case, root-kits, games were coming with things like Securom and Safedisc, movies & other things shifted to even more proprietary formats. Then comes MS PALLADIUM and Intel's TPM chip, which more or less decides what you want to do with your PC for you, that was scrapped, thankfully (the remnants made it into Vista, as Bitlocker and a few other nuances), and the venerable Windows activation scheme. In general, all these ridiculous copy protection schemes. With progression, the user/user's software got shifted up from Ring 0 (maybe 1, or 2) i.e. absolute control over the PC to Ring X which I have no idea of - but it's very limited. All these things were justified under "anti-piracy", the exact same way as everyone's continuous stripping of rights is justified as "anti-terrorism".
With Windows 95, you could basically take a disk image of one PC, paste it onto a hundred PCs and have them network with each other relatively well. Try it now. It's not looking any better for the future - Vista comes with the "Protected Video Path" and other nonsense, and to do that, they had to shift most/all non-critical software/drivers into user mode. More stable, yes. More control? No way in hell. Even the audio system runs in a "protected process", protected from who? The user. If you're on Vista, kill "AudioDG.exe", which is NOT the audio service itself, but the "protected" segment and have fun listening to the sweet sound of silence (don't put the volume up too high if a mime lives next door ;D). Again, justified as "anti-piracy" or "anti-terrorism". On Vista 64-bit and undeniably, subsequent editions of Windows, there is NO non-Microsoft approved code running in Ring 0 (there was one case of someone paying for a Verisign digital certificate, creating a bypass, and Microsoft very quickly revoked/blacklisted their certificate). That means, NO complete control over your own physical hardware that you paid for. It rules out a few things, but generally it contributes to vendor lock in. A PC is still usable for everyone, or most, with everything running user mode. But guess what, from now, Microsoft (in collaboration with Intel and other monopolistic hardware giants) decides what you want to do with your PC. Their new motto, if they were honest, would be
This is where we decided you are going today.
But of course, that's HALF the equation. We also have a sort of feedback loop. Microsoft knows that the overwhelming majority of Windows copies are unlicensed. They make their big bucks in the business sector. But working people have home lives and home computers too. If MS wished, they have the entire subsystem already in place to cripple every known pirated issue of WinXP or Vista (Reduced Functionality Mode, basically turns your PC into an internet browsing kiosk). It would be a matter of days. But they know market share is what counts (Click), and ever home user familiar with MS Windows is a potential worker familiar with MS Windows. So, we get more lock-in. The number one reason preventing corporations migrating to free/open software from Windows is user training/experience, to my knowledge. And guess what, every teen growing up with cracked Microsoft products is a teen growing up, ready to work with MS software experience, and not Linux or BSD experience. They have left an "ultimate" activation bypassing method since WGA came out, and these always involve licensing with large businesses (co-incidence? I think not.), which just happens to allow home users to use it fully, and what a coincidence, the higher end, non-crippled copies of Windows also happen to be the business oriented editions (For instance, Vista Business Edition comes with Windows Aero, why? Does anyone need a fancy interface to run MS Office?). Which is more likely to be pirated, Vista Home Basic/Crippled edition or Vista ULTIMATE edition? Smart move.
So, in short, piracy drums up virtual fascism, which also translates into real life fascism (No Ring 0 access to anyone but "trusted parties" in an increasingly digital age, with a rabid world government which ALREADY has multiple tracking/eavesdropping networks up? Put the crack pipe down. Another example is the RIAA's ridiculous efforts). You pirate, you support fascism and authoritarianism and other not-very-nice-isms.
The first time I looked at this pic
http//modernhumorist.com/mh/0011/mp3/images/mp3.jpg
I laughed. But now I'd be better off crying, because it's very true, just not in a very direct way, and definitely not something that a casual user of computers will grasp. We are, or will be, in a state of emergency, and the alarm bells are bloody ringing loud and clear - only on a pitch that none but those who look carefully can hear. To sum it up Huge conglomerate of corporations (Intel, Microsoft, nVidia, AMD, ATi, numerous motherboard manufacturers, Creative Labs - and those are just the ones targeting us, the home users) decides control of the PC is not good for the end-user. At the same time, computers take over the world, and at the same time, the government tends towards taking control. The end of this? Government in bed with big silicon, telling YOU what you can, and cannot do with your own PC, which by the time this bowls over, if it even happens, will be your life to a certain degree. Remind you of a certain pharmaceutical industry?
How to combat this crap?
Trade in full measure, a=b. When b = 0, a = 0, still full measure. Just like in reality, where energy in = energy out, an undeniable, unchangeable fact. Don't trade in increase. Increase is not like full measure/trade. You WILL reap what you sow, and what looks good on the surface is not always what is truly good.
Where did that message come from, I wonder? ;D
Sorry to rant but I didn't really grasp how significant this is until I just sat down and thought of it. I mean, alarm bells were ringing when I heard of Vista's 64 bit protection but my ears weren't tuned to them back then. Some people say the quran is anachronistic, or does not apply to modern scenarios, well, I think some people need to lay off the crack. God is very, very real and the signs are really there if you look & think.
No excuses people, put up or shut up.
292 - Do men think that they will be left alone on saying, We believe, and not be tried?
Scuse me while I run this SUSE installer I've been putting off for months ;D
-
Howdy,
Okay, let's continue then. If someone asks me to refrain from doing something, and I still do it, how is that a sin again? ??? How is that against God's law? Let's move to the next level and provide a verse or two. ) (Bear in mind what I just said above)
Here are some relevant verses
"O you who believe, do not consume each others' properties illicitly - only mutually acceptable transactions are permitted." 429
"O my people, you shall give full measure and full weight, equitably. Do not cheat the people out of their rights, and do not roam the earth corruptingly." 1185
"You shall give full measure when you trade, and weigh equitably. This is better and more righteous." 1735
Respecting the requests of others, particular when you tread on their territory, either physically, mentally or otherwise is required 2428
Several people here have expressed their opinion that its okay to deal less equitably with those already rich, or those charging "too much" for the goods they are selling. This is not acceptable either, as 375 makes clear.
Again, whether going against the spirit of these verses counts as "right", "wrong", "sin" or just "bad character"... well that's what I was asking.