Is it a Sin to Download music, books or movies from the Internett?
-
Salam my people )
I wonder if it is Haram/Sin to download this stuff. My common sense says no, but at the same time, the markets are selling their stuff to expensive, and maybe everyone doesn'nt have the money to buy all this music or movies, so they have to download it for free until they get some money and can buy.
If i had enough money i would always buy, but at the moment i'm need my money for other stuff that are much much more important.
So sometimes i download music or movies, and a few times e-books but i have quitted to download e-books, couse i think its better to have real books, not 300 pages in a plastic-keeper, cause its to big, and takes much space..Do you any of you do download stuff from internett today or did it in the past?
According to the Quran, is it really haram?
Your friend David..
-
Salam David,
I would like to suggest reading the following
http//www.free-culture.cc/
you can download it here
http//www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/It contains a good definition of piracy and it also gives a decent history lesson as to "intellectual property" etc.. Maybe it can help you figure it out a bit better.
peace. peace
edited to add
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=15091.0 -
Peace, good question, if it's approved as free music or software (ex. OperaMini, or Avast antivirus) from the authors then no problem with downloading them. You got many freeware online. But as to the practice of downloading pirated, hacked, cracked stuff, it amounts to plain theft. Ok, such stuff may be expensive when you purchase it, but does that give us the right to steal? It's almost as if i'm saying that i'll steal a bmw cause it's too expensive. Do i need a bmw? Why cant i drive a japanese car? Because of the prestige of a bmw?
Mauritius, my country is a paradise of dvd piracy. In every corner you got people selling a pirated movie for 1dollar. And it's the muslims who sell. They make millions of dollars out of this business cause the costs are low. These hypocrites publish articles to criticise quranaloners but yet themselves indulge in the worst cheating as per chapter 102. That is why God calls them hypos. They clearly are. -
Peace,
I don't think downloading is a "sin" as long as you're not making money off of someone else's work. Back in the day, before the internet craze, we used to buy CD's and copy them for friends. No one ever made it a crime. No one ever said it was sinful. Even before that, we would record music off the radio with our cassette decks. Same thing - no problems.
So, what's the difference?
Peace,
Tay -
The price of an object is completely irrelevant when talking about theft.
the markets are selling their stuff to expensive, and maybe everyone doesn't have the money to buy all this music or movies
If you can not afford something, that's too bad! You can't have it! Say you walk into a computer store and see a very expensive Notebook computer that you don't have enough money to buy, and you think its too expensive, what, are you going to walk out of the shop with it without paying!?
The music artist who made their music is selling their music to make some money, to live life. They likely worked hard to produce it. Now, if you want to enjoy that music, you pay. If you don't pay, its theft. You just stole their money. Simple.
If i had enough money i would always buy, but at the moment i'm need my money for other stuff that are much much more important.
So, make your choice! It is a sin to simply thieve the things you can not afford, or do not want to pay for. Haram. Simple.
I don't think downloading is a "sin" as long as you're not making money off of someone else's work.
So if you take the apple from the tree in my backyard which I worked to plant and grow, and don't sell it, its not theft!? I wanted to eat that apple! Actually, I wanted to sell that apple myself so I could save to buy something I wanted...
Back in the day, before the internet craze, we used to buy CD's and copy them for friends. No one ever made it a crime. No one ever said it was sinful. Even before that, we would record music off the radio with our cassette decks. Same thing - no problems.
Actually, it was, and still is legally a crime. Its called theft. And there were problems, one of them being that such thieves are very hard to catch!
-
Well said nazz, most people from the masses dont imagine themselves in others' shoes. Sura 102 is a big warning to them. According to them, we should be all be Robin Hoods. Sure sometimes i understand. Music and movie producers demand unreasonable prices and that's why we see successful actors musicians leading life styles of kings. In that case, i have resorted to one solution dont buy, boycott them (those who lead lifestyles of kings and charge high prices). A blank cd merely costly one sixth of a dollar, so how much profit does the music industry make! If you see the actors musicians are humble and that is rarely the case, then support them by buying. It shouldn't be hard. If you see musicians actors showing off their wealth, practice decadence, show up naked at the beach, etc then say to yourself that it's partly your money that is financing them.
-
What about the library concept? I'm sure Stephen King worked quite hard on The Dark Tower series. Shame I could read it in a few days and then return it without paying. Then there are those awful romance novels that you (well maybe not everyone) reads from a library without ever any need of paying. If one buys them, in the majority of cases after reading they throw/give them away or sell them if they are any willing victims and the cycle continues. I've read like thousands of these uh, crappy novels from libraries.
There's a balance somewhere, if you buy something and a friend of yours wants to read/listen/watch it...you don't tell them "get away you thieving &%$&!", you'd most probably lend them your book or whatever. When we used to make "love tapes/cds" (yes...it did happen in some circles, don't laugh), you'd make this romantic assortment of love songs for example and gift it to the person you liked...whether you paid money to the store to record it for you or whether you created your own collection using your own tracks. It's just not thieving even if nowadays it's legally termed as thieving (many people who pirate do so to strike back at what is legally considered thieving because they opine/argue that it isn't and screw the big bad corporations, e.g. if you bought say 12 songs off of Itunes and recorded it on a CD and then gifted it to someone, that would be considered as thieving...wtf!)
Even people living in the same house these days can't share a single copy of anything, they have to buy two in order to be able to play for example a mmo/multiplayer...it's not that the sw should be different, they just need a unique serial number even if it's not essential for it to work. It's not completely outside the realm of possibility to allow say only 2 members of the family to play the same game together or use the same serial numbers...but no. Soon enough, one's kids listening to the same cd or reading the same book one bought for themselves will be penalised.
Lending obviously is looked upon favourably, that's why Blockbuster etc can lend out games for example. They just charge money for it. Libraries lend out stuff as well for free and if one likes it enough after using it, they buy it. People do give away the latest stuff in libraries surprisingly enough, the ones in MA are quite cool. It doesn't change the fact that one samples the full product in these cases and not pay for it, (whether they buy it later or not) and end up having to return the damn thing.
I agree however that rules are rules. The things one could do are either show the bird to the rules (sub-options piracy and doing something "illegal" as it stands now and face the consequences if one gets caught OR don't care about that stuff/or run after it because you think the rules suck and it's a matter of principle) or one could live by them. I also like tarikh's opinion on it, boycott those who don't deserve your money. It's difficult but it's just like spending on something, one wouldn't spend on something that came from/is going to a bad place for example. Though again, if the same thing was available for "free and legal sampling" as in a library...hmm. I guess the concept of piracy on a smaller scale is a-okay, its the larger scale that tipped the scales so to say.
Speaking of this I'm reminded of what happened to ISP's recently. In the UAE, theres somewhat of a monopoly on internet service provider's. They decided to block all VOIP's a couple years ago. A rival company which was being set up then said, it's all good we won't do that and a little while later (apparently they got it from the guys with the powah behind the scenes) they gave in and blocked. Reasoning being, since there are a helluva lot of expats living in the UAE and they all make cheaper phone calls back home using Skype for example, it's hurting their higher priced international dialing. If they block the cheaper ones, they'll have no choice but to use their service and hence given the number of expats who have to call back home, their coffers will runneth over. Of course the cover story given was it's for "security" reasons XD.
One has to ask themselves, so...because I want to call my grandmother back home who's just got bedridden recently, I have to use the higher priced service when I want to talk more to her before she departs this world... and I can but illegally...on one hand its a black and white case of legal vs. illegal, on the other is that really so morally wrong? One is stealing something that was/should've been there in the first place, like the infamous horse armour of Oblivion fame and one is its greed that caused them to do this, I'll show 'em! Morality/judgements regarding many cases realistically in this world are never black and white even if the laws might be. That's why on the flip side if people say, buy the thing after you sample it if you like it from the library because it is the author's hard work...legally I don't owe the author anything, I read it from the library... though morally for example, if I've enjoyed his work I should pay for it.
Anyhow, I abhor such rules geared towards filling people's coffers and monopolies...but you either use it or you don't while simultaneously ranting about it. It's also to be expected that some will strike back at a system that they think/feel is greed etc and whether it's completely or partially justified morally/conceptually/theoretically is not black and white. So it essentially comes down to yeah it's "legally" a crime but should it be? (reminds me of this cough romance novel tagline...and no it wasn't about illicit orgies, rather about two different classes/races where marriage/love was a legal crime).
-
Peace Nadia, Nazz, all,
Nadia, you summed up my thoughts perfectly. It is a gray area and really depends on how we venture through it - intention and all. Personally, if I know an artist is putting out a quality CD, I will buy it. I like the packaging and the artwork and the little info snippets in the jacket. More importantly, I want to contribute to the artist's finances - being an amateur myself.
But, if it's just a single I want to hear, or something rare that I can't find in stores, then by all means I DL. Plus, I've been burned so many times in buying a CD for one track that i like only to find out the rest of the tracks are garbage. A lot of the compilations I made over the years were single tracks from many different CD's. And if someone liked the compilation, I'd burn 'em a copy. I don't see anything wrong with that. If the labels want to charge me for that, then I should in return charge them for putting together a quality compilation. ;D
Nazz, you stated
So if you take the apple from the tree in my backyard which I worked to plant and grow, and don't sell it, its not theft!? I wanted to eat that apple! Actually, I wanted to sell that apple myself so I could save to buy something I wanted...
No, not at all. More appropriately correlated would be if I buy an apple from you, and then offer a friend a slice of that apple. Or, I buy an apple from you and give my friend the seeds and he grows his own apple tree. Nobody is going into anyone's yard and stealing. That's why they call it file sharing.
Actually, it was, and still is legally a crime. Its called theft. And there were problems, one of them being that such thieves are very hard to catch!
No, it wasn't. Copyrights before the internet were all about "public performance" and "commercial use". Grab any old VCR tape and read the FBI Warning. It says nothing about copying nor sharing. But now that the bigwigs see the potential $$$ in locking up this market, it's become 'illegal'.
Peace,
Tay -
If they could, the majors would be making us pay each time we listen to one music. But if they did it now, they simply will get the population's middle finger.
http//www.theseminal.com/2007/10/02/the-era-of-free-music-is-upon-us/ This is quite interesting
Next, Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails urged fans to steal his albums, saying, ?If I could do what I want right now, I would put out my next album, you could download it from my site at as high a bit-rate as you want, pay $4 through PayPal.?
I personally wouldn't mind paying 4$ for an album, if apparently the group will earn more money than if they were with a major. Because willing to sell your product 4$ is quite nice.
-
Good points Mehdi, Tay and SC. )
And Yosemite, you're right, if they could charge for everytime you listened to a song they would. And they'd still whine about how much money they're losing. Same with the movie industry. Have you seen episodes of Cribs on MTV? Do they look like they have money problems? In the movie industry every year movies make more money than they did the year before yet they'll whine about piracy.
The apple analogy doesn't work in this issue. Infact I doubt you could use any analogy that involved something tangible.
Peace
-
I agree that we shouldn't download whole movies albums etc. But at the same i think that since the prices are so high, i can't actually be a big sin or something to download. But in my opinion if you don't have money to buy a cd or a movie, then you can download it and pay for it later when you got money. A thing that i do nowadays is to download for example an album from Nas or a movie by chris rock, and then since i already bought one expensive product from the actor or the artist, then i don't need to pay for the next 2 products i buy from that artist/company/actor etc. Or if the product is very fabulous, then i can pay them later, everything from one month to 1 year later. And these are rules that i have, and i use this rules when buying stuff, and i think it is a fair thing to do. But if an artist or an actor comes with a fantastic original movie or album that really is worth every cent, i think they deserve money for their work 100%, so in that case i would buy the cd or movie even dough i already have bought a cd or movie from that actor/artist a couple of weeks or months ago.
Your friend David
-
David_K,
Basically speaking, your set of 'rules' equate to "I'll buy the things I want, if and when I can afford it and if I feel like it." confused
since i already bought one expensive product from the actor or the artist, then i don't need to pay for the next 2 products i buy from that artist
ROFL! So if you bought a really expensive wide-screen TV from Sony, would you expect to recieve at NO COST, the Sony Surround System and Sony DVD player on the basis that you bought Sony's expensive TV!? ROFL. rotfl
-
Peace david, you must put yrself in the shoes of the artist. Music is a commodity. It's just like another product you're free to buy or not to buy. Sure you may lend cds or books at the library but these cds and books HAVE been bought. I myself borrowed jm jarre cds. I liked them and if i get the chance to buy them i'll buy. Downloaded free music often sounds cheap. An original cd has a much better sound.
-
Peace Nazz,
You can't compare apples and oranges. You have to compare apples and apples, to be objective anyway.
Widescreen tvs aren't a fare comparison to music, books, or movies. And yes, in any case you can 'share' the wide-screen tv's. Doesn't everyone do that... when let's say your friends come to your house to watch it? Or you let them borrow yours? Are you saying that no-one should be going to other people's houses to watch tv? Because that's 'stealing' isn't it? As SC pointed out, why is not considered stealing when you 'borrow' the books from the library?RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) admit they have no idea how much money they lose from filesharing, and that suing filesharers costs more than they gain from it. Where did these guys go to business school?
http//arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071002-music-industry-exec-p2p-litigation-is-a-money-pit.html?duh
Also, file-sharing BOOSTS cd sales
http//www.news.com/2100-1023-898813.html
http//www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/04.15/09-filesharing.html
I've been burned so many times in buying a CD for one track that i like only to find out the rest of the tracks are garbage.
You and me both!
-
You can't compare apples and oranges. You have to compare apples and apples, to be objective anyway.
Widescreen tvs aren't a fare comparison to music, books, or movies. And yes, in any case you can 'share' the wide-screen tv's. Doesn't everyone do that... when let's say your friends come to your house to watch it? Or you let them borrow yours? Are you saying that no-one should be going to other people's houses to watch tv? Because that's 'stealing' isn't it? As SC pointed out, why is not considered stealing when you 'borrow' the books from the library?Sharing your TV isn't wrong...but what if you could make free copies of your TV?
That changes things a bit, doesn't it? All the TV makers would go bankrupt.So there's a difference between just sharing and making copies. Sharing songs/games without making copies isn't wrong at all.
If I get a book from a library, it's the library's property and I have to return it. If I don't I have to pay them.
With file "sharing," I'm taking what someone has and making a copy of it which I don't have to return. I got it without paying for it. I own it now.
This may not be stealing, but is it right?
For one, it's a bit unfair isn't it? I mean, how come some people pay for a song and others don't? If the makers are asking for money for something they produced, shouldn't we pay them?
And there's another thing, Emmanuel Kant came up with this rule called (I think), the "rule of universality" which is basically that to determine if something is right or wrong, we ask ourselves whether we'd like the world in which EVERYONE did it. I think this is a useful rule.
So if everyone made free copies of movies and music and games and no one paid for them, wouldn't the producers of the music and the games and the movies suffer? Would we like that? -
If I get a book from a library, it's the library's property and I have to return it. If I don't I have to pay them.
Talking about free sampling of the full product without having to pay lobster. Context.
With file "sharing," I'm taking what someone has and making a copy of it which I don't have to return. I got it without paying for it. I own it now.
This may not be stealing, but is it right?If you like something you pay for it. Just like the library. Or you borrow it and return it ingesting the authors/devs/producers hard work and not pay for it. Perfectly legal.
For one, it's a bit unfair isn't it? I mean, how come some people pay for a song and others don't? If the makers are asking for money for something they produced, shouldn't we pay them?
If people are going to penalise me for letting my friends listen to a song or me gifting my spouse with a cd I burnt out of songs I own/bought/paid for, that's unfair. But they make the rules.And there's another thing, Emmanuel Kant came up with this rule called (I think), the "rule of universality" which is basically that to determine if something is right or wrong, we ask ourselves whether we'd like the world in which EVERYONE did it. I think this is a useful rule.
Everyone's opinions are different, you'd end up with people wanting to have everyone doing things which they liked/would want but other's don't.So if everyone made free copies of movies and music and games and no one paid for them, wouldn't the producers of the music and the games and the movies suffer? Would we like that?
That's why support a just cause, support Bioware!P.S. I'd send Radiohead $100 purely for principle alone D.
-
Sharing your TV isn't wrong...but what if you could make free copies of your TV?
That changes things a bit, doesn't it? All the TV makers would go bankrupt.
I think the proper comparison would be the sharing the shows on TV, not the TV itself. And that's not "wrong". What you're saying, should be equated to sharing the computer which downloads the music... as in making copies of the computer. hmmEveryone's opinions are different, you'd end up with people wanting to have everyone doing things which they liked/would want but other's don't.
Exactly. I know people who only buy CDs. They have the option of buying the songs from iTunes, for example, but they feel like their being 'ripped off' if they cant have the actual original disc with the artwork etc.The library/book analogy works in the principal of it all, but more appropriately I would give the example as, you borrow the book from the library, which is very much legal, you make photocopies of all the pages, your own cost, and give the book back. Is that illegal/wrong/a sin? Think about it.
Peace