Is it a Sin to Download music, books or movies from the Internett?
-
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.
-
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
Well said .
tempt
The test is happening now. -
I think the majority on here just use PCs for web browsing/office work, you have very little excuse
-
Peace nazz
Howdy,
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
Thank you for posting the verses. Believe me, I understand where you're coming from, however, we are still in disagreement, somewhat.
Looking at the verses... first we're going back to the point where there is no "property" here that we're talking about, and in turn there is no consumption. Secondly, there is no trade. Let's go back to the point that Tay and I were making earlier. Now look at the same verses, as I give this example, NOT the man made laws. Tay bought a CD, or a book, or an apple from Target. Tay, being the nice guy that he is, says here zenje read this book/listen to this CD/eat half of this apple, I think you'll enjoy it. Now tell me, was there any trade? Was there any measure that was weighed? Was there any stolen property? (between Tay and myself?) On the other hand, if Tay bought the CD and he then sells it, which is still not illegal, or a sin, and then I take it without paying, or I pay him much less than what he asked for... I think the verses then apply.
And this is what happens, people are sharing their music or books online. They bought it, and they in turn share it. Is that a sin? Does that answer your question? And even in the case where the person who downloaded it, didn't buy it, it's still the same thing, they are sharing too.
Again, IMO, the ones who steal, in most cases, are really the artists and the production/distribution companies. They are the ones who haven't given "full measure". Think Microsoft, and tell me who's the one being robbed. !
peace
-
Hi!
Tay bought a CD, or a book, or an apple from Target. Tay, being the nice guy that he is, says here zenje read this book/listen to this CD/eat half of this apple, I think you'll enjoy it. Now tell me, was there any trade?
Yes, there was trade; Tay purchased the items from the producer. However Tay has then subsequently chosen to either give or lend the mentioned items to Zenje, which is not trade. We're all sweet here. No wrong has been committed.
...and then I take it without paying, or I pay him much less than what he asked for... I think the verses then apply.
Exactly. You'd be a thief or a cheat. So for precisely this reason, when somebody permanently acquires something for less than an (mutually agreed) price, its theft/cheating. So when the artist asks that you pay $20 for a CD, and you do not pay? What's that? If a friend who bought the CD gives or lends it to you as in your example above, fine. However if instead, you get it from another source which circumvents the market - the artist doesn't get the money he/she is rightfully entitled to.
people are sharing their music or books online. They bought it, and they in turn share it. Is that a sin? Does that answer your question? And even in the case where the person who downloaded it, didn't buy it, it's still the same thing, they are sharing too.
I fully agree that sharing per se is OK. But what is happening with music and software piracy, in my view, is not legally or morally/ethically 'correct' sharing. How can it be, if the artist is cheated of his/her rightful income?
Again, IMO, the ones who steal, in most cases, are really the artists and the production/distribution companies. They are the ones who haven't given "full measure". Think Microsoft, and tell me who's the one being robbed. !
Without a doubt, certain artists and companies take advantage of the market, others charge exorbitant prices and others still engage in unfair activities. This however, as aalmakto pointed out does not make two wrongs a right; we can choose whether we buy or not.
-
Peace nazz,
Yes, there was trade; Tay purchased the items from the producer. However Tay has then subsequently chosen to either give or lend the mentioned items to Zenje, which is not trade. We're all sweet here. No wrong has been committed.
We're making headway! )Exactly. You'd be a thief or a cheat. So for precisely this reason, when somebody permanently acquires something for less than an (mutually agreed) price, its theft/cheating. So when the artist asks that you pay $20 for a CD, and you do not pay?
Uh oh. Are we sliding back again? I don't know the artist, I never spoke to him/her, no dealings whatsoever. However, I know Tay, and I had a relationship with him. He's the one who gave me the CD. Or am I in debt to Target and everyone else who the CD went through? I did not steal from Tay, he gave me the CD! Of which you agreed yourself earlier, that we are 'sweet here'. In turn, I can give the CD to Lobster and he can give it to whoever he likes. Neither Lobster, nor I am answerable to Target or the truck driver who carried it or the production company or the distribution company or Kanye West. So no, the artist asked nothing of me.If a friend who bought the CD gives or lends it to you as in your example above, fine.
Thanks )However if instead, you get it from another source which circumvents the market - the artist doesn't get the money he/she is rightfully entitled to.
What? What source? I could meet atotal stranger on the street and he could give me a disc and ask for nothing in return. Should I still then be answerable to Fergie?I fully agree that sharing per se is OK.
Bravo! You make me happy brother. We're together. Let us take this moment in... breathe deeply... and say all praise be to God.But what is happening with music and software piracy, in my view, is not legally or morally/ethically 'correct' sharing. How can it be, if the artist is cheated of his/her rightful income?
You worry too much bro... let the God take care of 50 cent, God is the provider. May God not make him and other artists poor any time soon. May God grant Bill Gates and his Microsoft corporation even more money than they could ever count. prWithout a doubt, certain artists and companies take advantage of the market, others charge exorbitant prices and others still engage in unfair activities. This however, as aalmakto pointed out does not make two wrongs a right; we can choose whether we buy or not.
Agreed. handshakePeace brother, I hope you don't take my poking fun at these people as anything other than that. I hope haven't offended you or anyone in my posts. Thank you for indulging me... I will bow out now. Good night, and Good luck.
peace
All we can do is keep breathing - Ingrid Michaelson
-
. 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.
no humans are infallible not the ruling! i think somewhere in QUran it mentions us to pray and not drink and to eat halal meat YET we find muslims doing these things.. so should we criticise the Quran or the muslims that actually do this?
And re the library this is actually not piracy, for one library costs are met by you the taxpayers so stephen king will get his due as the people wouldnt give the book to the library for free...