Big Music vs Christian file sharers
p2pnet.net News:- Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG appear to be ramping up their bid to recruit God in their war against their own customers whom they’re trying to sue into buying ‘product’.
Back in 2004, the Big Four Organized Music cartel’s Christian Music Trade Association was behind a propaganda blitz carrying the message that file sharing is morally wrong.
Now its Gospel Music Trade Assocation, “is preparing to go to youth events and organizations in coming months with presentations that frame the question of digital downloading as a purely ethical issue,” says The Los Angeles Times‘ Geoff Boucher, going on to quote its president, John Styll (who, “seemed plainly exasperated with the notion of young churchgoers taking music illicitly”) as saying:
“The RIAA feels it can’t address it as a moral issue, but we certainly can, and our audience should be more receptive to that. It’s like stealing. You wouldn’t walk into a Christian bookstore and steal a Bible off the shelf…. some fans say, ‘This music is made to spread the Word, and I’m just helping.’ Well, this is also about people’s livelihoods.”
That’ll be pure music to the ears of the Big Four’s RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America). And so it should be given that RIAA flacks wrote the song.
The LA Times article leads off by saying when the pastor at Regina Kennedy’s church in Delaware said was it a sin to download gospel tunes without paying for them, she apparently went home and deleted every song.
But, “Kennedy is hardly alone among conflicted fans of Christian music, but her decision to erase her library does set her apart from most of them, especially younger ones,” says the story. “Surveys show that born-again Christian teens are just as active in stealing and swapping music as their secular peers who pinch the latest Eminem rap hit or Kelly Clarkson power ballad.”
The story quotes 16-year-old Mikes as saying, “They should give it [music] away ’cause it’s art anyways” and, “Those attitudes, along with the arrival of an edgy and restless new generation of artists and lean times in the music industry, have created a clash between familiar imperatives,” says Boucher.
“Spread the Word and Thou shalt not steal.”
The major record labels and Hollywood movie studios have been traditionally and infamously linked to Organized Crime, rampant drug use, the use of sex as currency, and corruption at all levels and they’re the absolute last entities on earth to be instructing anyone, let alone teenagers, on moral issues.
Yet that’s exactly what’s they’re doing: Use the mainstream print and electronic media to broadcast lies and eventually, they’ll be accepted as truth. And to take the process further, to change the future, warp the minds of children and teens in the present.
Today, following the huge and ongoing media propaganda campaign, ’sharing’ now means ’stealing’ in much the same way, and for exactly the same reason, ‘pirate’ is now synonymous with counterfeiter.
But with a download or shared file, nothing has, in fact, been stolen. No one has been deprived of anything he or she used to own, no money has changed hands and the cartels have never been able to prove that a file shared equals a sale lost.
Be that as it may, “industry leaders” said figures showing that efforts such as a “Millions of Wrongs” campaign were making in-roads, says the LA Times.
That may, however, be a leap of faith, it has Joe Fleischer, chief of marketing for Big Champagne, saying.
The uptick in Christian music sales, “was more than matched by a jump in Christian music that was traded on peer-to-peer networks, e-mailed as file attachments and (the new popular mode of youth distribution) via digital files tucked into instant messages,”he states, according to the story.
“While much new revenue came in, more was missed, Fleischer said, adding that the same zealous fans that are taking their music for free are also minting new stars for a genre that is amid a major crossover into mainstream rock.”
And the same applies across the board.
To further drive home the message that p2p file sharing might actually be good, Christian recording artist Derek Webb has not only received good reviews for his tour, “but also a flurry of coverage in industry outlets such as Billboard magazine,” says Boucher, adding:
“The reason? He’s opted to give away a full download of his new album for three months on the Internet. He had sold 17,000 copies (both as CDs and downloads) since its December release and has given away 50,000 more since the download offer began in September. In exchange for the free music, he asks only that fans give him the names of five more people to e-mail about his music.”
And Webb is quoted as saying, “I can’t think that’s a coincidence and all of this, it’s a huge part of my future.”
Also See:
Christian Music Trade Association – Fewer Than 1 in 10 Teenagers Believe that Music Piracy is Morally Wrong, April 26, 2004
The Los Angeles Times – Pirating Songs of Praise, October 10, 2006
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
October 11th, 2006 at 1:39 am
Your introduction is blasphemous.
October 11th, 2006 at 4:47 am
Didn’t jesus apparently create a whole pile of fish and bread for a crowd of people at some point? Isn’t that denying the local bread and fish vendors a chance to sell their wares for a profit? Isn’t it also a validation of filesharing, which is of course the creation of copies of data to share around?
So if jesus is ok with “fish-sharing” then i’d say he wouldn’t have any complaints about filesharing either. Any christians working in the muzakbigbiz should also consider whether or not they’re going to end up in hell for assisting an industry that seems to be actively engaged in the deadly sin of greed.
October 11th, 2006 at 9:29 am
Organized religion is just another tool used by greedy people to control stupid people’s minds and fleece their pocketbooks. This article couldn’t demonstrate that fact better.
The only ones still buying into the worship nonsense are the weakest-minded of our species. You could probably trick these people into indentured servitude and slavery if you posed it in the right context.
But for now, the ‘christian’ music industry will settle for exploiting people’s spiritual/superstitious beliefs in favour of a few bucks here and there.
Leave the whole servitude and slavery part to the US gov’t who seem to be doing an excellent job at making the fools march in lockstep in what they think is some holy mission to conquer the middle-east (even though it’s obvious to everyone else with two brain cells to rub together what the true motivations are.)
People who need ‘moral instruction’ from a religion clearly are unable to conceive of true morals themselves to begin with, and clearly are lacking the human empathy which is how the rest of us on the outside manage to get along without the help of any types of ’sky daddy’ to keep an eye on us.
In life, beware people who need constant moral instructions just as you would beware getting in a car with people who need constant driving instructions.
October 11th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
very good point
October 11th, 2006 at 11:57 pm
And yet accurate…
How exactly is it blasphemous? It’s not as if he put;
“p2pnet.net News:- Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG appear to be ramping up their bid to recruit יהוה in their war against their own customers whom they’re trying to sue into buying ‘product’.”
there we go, now <i>that’s</i> blasphemous!
October 12th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
Nonsense.
October 13th, 2006 at 8:40 am
I will be the one going against the flow of this, but what the heck. This website has a right to express their perspectives on file-sharer’s rights, and how ‘evil’ the music industry is – I would even say that I agree with the last two statements.
. However, fish is not intellectual property, but music is. If I copied a paper for a college assignment, I would be stealing intellectual property. The same goes for music, it is intellectual property which the artist and recording industry allow to be accessed according to certain mean. Christians are not making these statements from greed, but based on their observations and convictions.
But to attack a religion’s viewpoint based on their convictions is narrow-minded. Although people would respond that some religions have a “conviction” to blow people up – well, I’m not talking about convictions which cause harm to mankind, I’m talking of convictions which look out for other people.
The purpose is because many evangelical Christians, if not ecumenical Christians believe that file-sharing is stealing. Despite their beliefs, many do it anyway. Devout pastors are concerned with following with what they believe is right and just, and see a need in being a shepherd to their congregation.
Even if it is not seen as doing morally wrong, they feel they need to be subject to the government. Being subject is not the same as submission, but rather it means to respect authority. Subjection does not always mean to obey, but to be willing to face the consequences. The purpose of this idea is to avoid anarchy, and I respect Christians who choose to avoid anarchy.
To the one who made the comment about Jesus multiplying the fish – that was creative, I like that
Do I follow the music laws? No! But I will admit that what I am doing is stealing because it is hijacking intellectual property. Even if nobody agrees with this statement, Christians should be respected for their beliefs in a pluralistic society. Just as this site has a right to be respected for perspectives, so should Christians be just as equally respected for their perspectives.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:16 am
“If I copied a paper for a college assignment, I would be stealing intellectual property.”
I am sure that is not what you meant.
If you present as your own, someone else’s work to a professor, so as to fool the professor, you have only fooled yourself. If you get passing grades by fooling professors, you may actually graduate, but when you enter the workforce, you will flop. I have seen enough of these flops, persons with college degrees who are incompetent professionals.
If I were th author of a work, and you as student copy my work into your assignment, perhaps as an apendix, giving me the credit as the source of the material, then it would never even cross my mind the thought that you stole from me, even if you used/copied my work without my permission, as nothing has been taken from me.
Are you suggesting that all the copying that was done by the religious and non religious scribes before we had the printing press was stealing?
We must ask ourselves, is what is stealing defined by laws (possibly written by crooks) and not by traditonal mores, the fundamental values of a society?
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
October 13th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
“I am sure that is not what you meant.”
Sorry, that’s what I meant.
“If you present as your own, someone else’s work to a professor, so as to fool the professor, you have only fooled yourself…. I have seen enough of these flops, persons with college degrees who are incompetent professionals.”
I never talked about getting away with plagiarism in college, so this is irrelevent.
“If I were th [sic] author of a work, and you as student copy my work into your assignment, perhaps as an apendix, giving me the credit as the source of the material, then it would never even cross my mind the thought that you stole from me, even if you used/copied my work without my permission, as nothing has been taken from me.”
Okay, but we are not talking about if the author knows or not, we are talking about the act of stealing itself. And with file-sharing, there has been debate on the cause of music sales going down.
“Are you suggesting that all the copying that was done by the religious and non religious scribes before we had the printing press was stealing?”
That is not a good argument. The role for any type of scribe was to pass on work, to keep it preserved, or at least the author’s integrity preserved if not the words. It was not plagiarism because the scribes never claimed it to be theirs.
“We must ask ourselves, is what is stealing defined by laws (possibly written by crooks) and not by traditonal mores, the fundamental values of a society? ”
We also must ask ourselves, do we only obey the law when we agree with it?
October 13th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
“I never talked about getting away with plagiarism in college, so this is irrelevent.”
Well, actually, you said that copying was stealing, no buts and ifs. Copying, a song, a newspapr article can never be stealing, as you actually take nothing. Then if copying anything was stealing then photocopy machines would have to be illegal, as well as blank cds and casettes.
“And with file-sharing, there has been debate on the cause of music sales going down.”
I suspect that you are equating file sharing with stealing and a cause of drop in sales. That is a wrong perspective. File sharing is described as a crime by people that stand to gain (they think wrongly) if people get scared of file sharing. If file sharing causes a reduction in the sales of CDs, so what? Airplanes decimated the passenger ship industry. So what? Anyway the tourism and travel business exploded and that is good for the travel industry and the people. No law should make something criminal so as to sustain an industry and, actually, no law classifiels files sharing as a crime. If anything it is a civil, copyright infringement matter, if the shared file has a copyright, if you want to sue the hand that feeds you, the customers.
“That is not a good argument.”
You argument was that copying, no buts and ifs, was stealing. If all copying is stealing then what the scribes did was stealing.
“We also must ask ourselves, do we only obey the law when we agree with it?”
That too is a very good question. George Washing and others did not agree with British law. And they revolted and became anti british “terrorists”. Were they right? History says they were. Should they have obeyed the British laws? No.
If this discussion means anything is that everything can be looked at from two perspectives. If you are on the people’s side, you may look a things differently that if you are a copyright holder or a shareholder that only wants to make quick, shrt term money off your copyrights or shares. Then for you, copying is a crime. Yo me, it isn’t. Actually non commercial sharing is good for the music industry and artists in the long run. Its a big opportunity for the sector of the music industry that adapts itself to the new realities.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
October 14th, 2006 at 7:22 am
I thought it would be best to finish off some final thoughts.
“Well, actually, you said that copying was stealing, no buts and ifs. Copying, [sic] a song, a newspapr [sic] article can never be stealing, as you actually take nothing. Then if copying anything was stealing then photocopy machines would have to be illegal, as well as blank cds and casettes.”
My intent to the the plagiarism illustration was to demonstrate that words and research are intangible, but yet mental, just as music is intangible, but mental; but both of these are recorded onto something tangible. With plagiarism, the crime is claiming something as one’s own, and not even giving credit; and downloading music through p2p, and keeping it, is a sign of copyright infringement.
I never said copying was never okay, but under these areas, some sort of trespass is made.
Photocopy machines, blank CD’s, and cassettes are not necessarily theft, they are tools to be used responsibly.
“I suspect that you are equating file sharing with stealing and a cause of drop in sales.”
Your suspection is incorrect. When I said there is debate that file-sharing takes away sales, I simply meant it to be taken at face value. I am neutral on the issue because I simply don’t know which side to take.
“If file sharing causes a reduction in the sales of CDs, so what? Airplanes decimated the passenger ship industry.”
The example of airplanes taking sales away from the ship industry illustrates competition in commerce. But file-sharing is something-for-nothing in the sense the user is not paying the artists cash for their hard work. If the person is paid, they are fairly compensated.
“If all copying is stealing then what the scribes did was stealing.”
Read the context of my previous post, because the intent of my argument was not acknowledged – I said the scribes never claimed that work was their own, they were Preserving the texts they were copying.
Like I am clarifying in this post, copying is not necessarily stealing, only when it resorts to copyright infringement and plagiarism. Scribes were preserving the work for religious and secular communities – they were not claiming work to be their own, nor was there any copyright infringement because it did not exist at the time.
There are more rebuttals to make, but I would rather focus on the importance of my first post to this article. My purpose was to defend the Christians based on their convictions, and that they should be respected for their beliefs and convictions. They should not be trashed. And Rafael, you might want to look at the context of posts to avoid misunderstanding; otherwise, it looks like you take a person’s words out of context just because they disagree with you.
I am just surprised that the article was speaking against Christianity on p2pnet because they are not supposed to denigrate religion. If it was an article which observed major religions that is fair, but is not. I hope p2pnet is more careful in how they approach the issues, rather than blasting religion.
Rafael, if there is anything you are right about, there are different perspectives. This site has mainly one perspective, and SOME Christians have a contrary perspective. But, p2pnet, when it comes to religion, give religion repsect even if a pastor call copyrighted file-sharing stealing.
October 17th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
Imagine if any other product were copiable or “sharable”. What if it were candy bars or Nike shoes? Imagine if I could buy a pair of shoes and copy them perfectly for all of my friends. And my friends could copy them for their friends. And then I put them on the internet for millions of people to get new shoes at no cost, etc. etc…
How would you feel if you were the one on the assembly line making that first pair of shoes, and depending on actual sales to feed your family? How would you feel knowing that thousands of people were wearing exact duplicates of the fruits of your labor for free? That is what it is like to be a musician today.
March 22nd, 2008 at 4:43 am
Hi all, using Jesus’ miracle of multiplication of the loaves and fish should not be used in this context. The ONLY reason for NOT file sharing should be LOVE for the brother & sister who spent time talent AND MONEY to produce the songs! They have left their normal jobs and dedicated to produce songs for our inspiration. We need to share in the cost of production and distribution. Just because the cost of distribution is now almost nil if done digitally doesn’t make it legal to share freely.