“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.

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

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?

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

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!

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.

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.