What does religion have to say about copyright?

[Pixel_Outlaw]

Some one help me out here --

As we have discussed at great length it's illegal to download music, games, movies, ect. online, but we can borrow a book from the library?

Isn't this the same thing? we are still depriving a artist of his % of the pie, or do authors of books consider themselves above it all?

we can't download a movie on line legally but we can borrow a movie from the library also..

we can borrow Cds from the library also

anyone know what this magic line is?

why do the artist allow us to walk into our local public library and take their stuff with the full backing of everyone involved but if we do it online it's a federal crime

The problem with this thinking is that you cannot copy books legally either. This is why you can rent movies in games but you cannot legally copy them. You rent books from the library, you rent games from the store. When you rent a book you are STILL not allowed to make copies. When you upload software that software or music becomes more than the original copy.

I'd love to have free information exchange but unfortunately many people seek to make money from sharing/transfering simple binary patterns. Their income is based on making/selling software. The law agrees and there is really nothing to be said.

Heaven forbid we get Star Trek's replicator technology working in the next 50 years. Seriously, there have been some very sound scientific steps toward it.

[Daedalus]

why do the artist allow us to walk into our local public library and take their stuff with the full backing of everyone involved but if we do it online it's a federal crime

Public libraries are a staple of American society and have been for centuries. Artists may not like them, but libraries don't significantly impact their earnings. If artists were to single out libraries, it would create a huge backlash and hurt their oppressive lobbying efforts in other sectors.

As for the legal bit, copyright law only prohibits the public from publishing copyrighted works. When you buy a copy, copyright law doesn't prevent you from selling/leasing/whatevering that particular copy.

However, it is important to note that recently (ie past few decades) many artists have decided to argue that you are not only purchasing a good, but the license to use it as well. And usually, these are filled with crazy ass restrictions (read nearly any major software EULA for an example). Although I don't know how well these have held up in court... and nobody is gonna push them on a library anyways, for reasons listed above.

I'd love to have free information exchange but unfortunately many people seek to make money from sharing/transfering simple binary patterns. Their income is based on making/selling software.

Ironically, the "people take advantage of a good thing" argument that so many companies use is really applicable to the companies themselves.

It's kind of sad to see the current state of copyright law. When it was created for our country, it aimed to let artists recoup their costs before it fell into public domain. Now as time passes, creators are able to make their money back far more quickly than those before them. Yet the term of copyright protection keeps -increasing-? That's messed up.

[Taylor]

Some one help me out here --

As we have discussed at great length it's illegal to download music, games, movies, ect. online, but we can borrow a book from the library?

Isn't this the same thing? we are still depriving a artist of his % of the pie, or do authors of books consider themselves above it all?

we can't download a movie on line legally but we can borrow a movie from the library also..

we can borrow Cds from the library also

anyone know what this magic line is?

why do the artist allow us to walk into our local public library and take their stuff with the full backing of everyone involved but if we do it online it's a federal crime

Because these are sources of knowledge and should be available to everyone, not (or not just) entertainment. Unless you're putting gaming on a ridiculous pedestal, a better comparison would be game rental. And rental is:

• Temporary, punishable with a fine.
• Not free.

[jpj]

this is still going?

also, there are tons of species B on this forum, and none of them are driving a merc

[Michaelm]

Public libraries are a staple of American society and have been for centuries.

Holy fuck, The stupid USA only exists for 200 years !
In Europe, there are plenty of libraries too. Even in the ancient greek time libraries existed.

A staple of American Society.
Man, you know how to make someone laugh

Oh yeah, and let us please not forget how the Americans respected everybody Ground rights as they have lovingly showed when the west was won. Ofcourse the copyright is a direct offspring of that.
Just be happy you won't get scalped when they catch you playing an illegal MP3 !

[OmniGLH]

Because these are sources of knowledge and should be available to everyone, not (or not just) entertainment. Unless you're putting gaming on a ridiculous pedestal, a better comparison would be game rental. And rental is:

• Temporary, punishable with a fine.
• Not free.

So if we create an online library, where the song or movie downloaded expires after 7 days, POOF! the things gone from the hardrive, the artists would have no reason to complain?

[Daedalus]

Holy fuck, The stupid USA only exists for 200 years !

And in that short time, we've accomplished more than your civilization has in the past thousand years. Don't forget that the very medium you use to insult me is powered by American technology.


Anyways, I speak from an American perspective because that's where I live. And I clarify that when I think it's important (such are our attitudes towards copyright enforcement). I have no desire to get into a jingoistic argument, and if the mere mention of my country boils your blood then you need to get a goddamn life.

So if we create an online library, where the song or movie downloaded expires after 7 days, POOF! the things gone from the hardrive, the artists would have no reason to complain?

No. Technically, you would be copying the file, as the online library would still retain the original copy. There is probably a way around this (if the original copy is held by the library for the consumer) but even so, the library would have to retain a copy for every person simultaneously borrowing the work. Even a dozen copies might be beyond the reach of a library, whereas millions of people can seek out a popular work online.

[JoshF]

MAH CUNTREE MAH CUNTREE MAH CUNTREE THIS IS MAAAAAAAH CUNTREEEEEEEEEEE

[MX7]

Holy fuck, The stupid USA only exists for 200 years !

And in that short time, we've accomplished more than your civilization has in the past thousand years.

Heh heh heh....

No.

[Pixel_Outlaw]

*Warning* *Warning* A Huge Lock Is Approaching Fast!

[Michaelm]

and if the mere mention of my country boils your blood then you need to get a goddamn life.

What boiled my blood was your mention of centuries when the goddamn country only exists for 200 years and that you honesly think libraries are something really American.
For the rest I think you're just a sorry excuse for a human being considering your pathetic views.

[JoshF]

Mike your opposition to aggressive military adventurism REEEEEEEEEKS of jingoism. Pay no attention to the flag in my hand.

[Taylor]

Because these are sources of knowledge and should be available to everyone, not (or not just) entertainment. Unless you're putting gaming on a ridiculous pedestal, a better comparison would be game rental. And rental is:

• Temporary, punishable with a fine.
• Not free.

So if we create an online library, where the song or movie downloaded expires after 7 days, POOF! the things gone from the hardrive, the artists would have no reason to complain?

No... Read the first sentence and last bullet point again.

[Daedalus]

What boiled my blood was your mention of centuries when the goddamn country only exists for 200 years and that you honesly think libraries are something really American.

First, you should understand that a century is 100 years. Thus, 200 years would be two centuries.

Second, I never said that America has some kind of special claim to libraries. I said, "Public libraries are a staple of American society" which is true. If I said "Rice is a staple of the Japanese diet" does it mean the Japanese invented rice? No. My point was that libraries have been ubiquitous since our country was founded, so we're not likely to give them up without a fight. And recognizing this, content owners do not try to provoke a fight with libraries.

MichaelM, maybe nobody has told you this, but your English is really terrible. I'm not trying to insult you, as it's impressive you've gotten this far, but when you're dealing with a native English speaker you should probably try to fully understand their meaning before flying off the cuff.

Heh heh heh....

No.

You think the Netherlands have had a greater impact on modern life than America? What makes you think so?

Mike your opposition to aggressive military adventurism REEEEEEEEEKS of jingoism. Pay no attention to the flag in my hand.

If you paid attention to the news, you would realize that many Americans have no desire to be involved in foreign wars.

[Neon]

Holy fuck, The stupid USA only exists for 200 years !

And in that short time, we've accomplished more than your civilization has in the past thousand years. Don't forget that the very medium you use to insult me is powered by American technology.

Amer-ica! Fuck yeah!

White people > black also. We've achieved so much more

[Ex-Cyber]

Because these are sources of knowledge and should be available to everyone, not (or not just) entertainment. Unless you're putting gaming on a ridiculous pedestal, a better comparison would be game rental. And rental is:

• Temporary, punishable with a fine.
• Not free.

So if we create an online library, where the song or movie downloaded expires after 7 days, POOF! the things gone from the hardrive, the artists would have no reason to complain?

No... Read the first sentence and last bullet point again.

The degree to which something is a source of knowledge or entertainment is highly subjective to begin with. There are those who find Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid immensely entertaining and those who find the novels of F. Scott Fitzgerald or John Steinbeck immensely educational. There is no bright line separating entertainment from knowledge, nor should there be; most entertainment is vapid enough and most education is boring enough already. Quite a few public libraries stock "entertainment" material anyway -- not only novels, but also popular music and Hollywood movies, so this is not a categorical difference between libraries and rental stores.

As for whether the end user needs to pay, that is not a matter between the end user and the original author/artist, but between the end user and the owner of the copy. Many people imagine that rental stores are legally required to pay royalties or have a license agreement to engage in rental, but that's not the case in the US for movies or console games (permission is required for music recordings and computer software, which is why rental stores rarely carry those).

[God]

I know of 2 religious stances on copyright:

1) "If sharing a thing in no way diminishes it, it is not rightly owned if it is not shared."
- St. Augustine

2) Scientology seems to like it.

[Ed Oscuro]

Happy I reserved my "why do I give a flipping flier what religion thinks about copyright" because God came by and told da troof.