Yesterday Bob Kauflin posted some random thoughts on MP3 downloads and copies (link). I assume my readers are familiar with Bob who serves as director of worship development for Sovereign Grace Ministries, and as a pastor and worship leader at Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Having just finished reading The Future of Music by David Kusek and Gerd Leonhard, Bob decided to reflect a bit on the book. The authors “think that increased access to music and freedom to distribute it legally will benefit consumers, companies, and artists alike.”
He provides a brief summary of the current copyright laws governing music:
Copyright laws still exist. Basically, the Copyright Office says:Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney’s fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.
… The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) site makes exceptions for personal copies:
Owning a CD means you own one copy of the music, and the U.S. record industry believes you should be able to make whatever personal use you choose. For example, you may make a compilation recording (on tape or on a CD) to use in the car or while exercising. But it’s a very different matter - and clearly neither legal nor fair - to make a copy of that CD or even one song available on the Internet for others to take.
Despite the clarity of the law, many people continue to ignore it. This is true both within the church and without. Bob links to a Barna report (link) from 2004 showing that only 1 in 10 Christian teenagers believe that music piracy is morally wrong. This varied very little from the percentage of non-Christian teenagers who believe the same. The report is well worth reading as a commentary on young Christians.
But then, as Bob says, “Christians have a higher standard than ‘everyone’s doing it.’ Romans 13:1, Deut. 5:19, and Eph. 4:28 come to mind. While file sharing, copying CD’s for friends, and downloading music illegally is easy and attractive, it’s still wrong, despite our rationalizations.” I have been amazed in talking to friends, and young people in particular, just how little they care for copyright laws. Excuses abound: “Everyone is doing it. The music companies don’t really care. The artists say they don’t care if we download their music.” I am even more amazed when I hear young people talk about pirating Christian music (I recently spoke to a young man who had pretty well the complete Sovereign Grace music collection but it was all illegally copied). I’ve even spoken to people who laugh, saying, “You don’t want to lend me your music. I’ll just copy it.” I have become careful with my music, lending it only to people who promise not to rip the CD’s.
Now I tend to agree that the music industry is going to have to change. I also agree that, by and large, pirated music has benefited many artists and many record companies since people are able to listen to a much wider variety of music than they ever could if they had to purchase it all. Sooner or later people who copy music tend to buy it as well. Derek Webb proved as much when he offered his CD Mockingbird free in its entirety and found that, while the album was downloaded some 80,000 times, not only did CD sales increase, but so did attendance at his concerts. I suspect other artists would find the same.
So the times are changing and will change. The music companies are going to have to stop swimming against the current and are going to have to figure out a way of surviving and thriving in this new world. They can do both, but will need to be willing to adapt and let go of some long-held but outdated ways of doing business. To this point they have been stubborn, but they will change. They will have to.
Until then, we are bound by the law. We are bound by both God’s law and the law of the land to respect the copyright rules. As Romans 13:1 says, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” What disturbs me far more than the actual individual acts of piracy is the mindset and worldview that allows Christians to do such a thing. It is only a secularized worldview that would allow a Christian to do something that so clearly violates the law. It shows clear evidence of the moral relativism that is so prominent in our culture and so foreign to Scripture.
In her book Total Truth Nancy Pearcey discusses a woman she met who professed to be a Christian and yet worked at Planned Parenthood. Clearly there was something wrong with this woman’s mindset that she could work at a place that was so unbiblical and even antibiblical. It seems to me that those who pirate music are doing something much the same. They are ignoring God’s laws and are doing something that directly conflicts with their statement of faith. People who commit music piracy are, at some place in their lives, forsaking a Christian view of the world, a Christian way of seeing life. They are thinking like the world rather than thinking like Christ. Most of them know this, but continually violate their consciences and continually thumb their noses at what they know to be right. This concerns me (and ought to concern them) because a mindset that allows music piracy is one that will undoubtedly allow other violations of both law and conscience. The first sin is usually the most difficult one. Subsequent sin becomes easier as the conscience is hardened and as the heart is polluted.
The fact is that laws are objective and are not ours to tamper with and interpret as we see fit. The ruling is clear: according to the laws of the land and the copyright of those who own the music, we have no right to copy or distribute it. Period. It makes no difference how much money the record companies make, how rich the artists are, how poor we are or how annoying and outdated the laws may be. It makes no difference how much we despise the militancy of the record companies and their irrationalities.
Interestingly, the first comment at Bob’s site begins with “I personally don’t believe in committing music piracy…” And perhaps this is the problem. This should not be a personal decision. Some things are fully, objectively right and others are really, objectively wrong. Music piracy is wrong. Period. This is not an issue of conscience or an issue of sorting better from best. There is nothing to ponder, nothing to wrestle with, and nothing to fret about. There is nothing that calls for some kind of a personal reflection or decision (just as there is no reason to worry about whether or not we should march into record stores, pull CD’s from the shelves, and walk out of the store without paying for them). Just don’t do it. It’s really that easy.
If you have a hard drive or MP3 player filled with pirated music, you owe it to yourself, to the rightful owners, to the copyright holders and to God to erase it. I might venture so far as to suggest that you ought to purchase that music yourself since you have already benefited from the enjoyment of it. At the very least, repent of your sin, ask for forgiveness, and commit to obeying the laws of our land. Commit to obeying God.



Comments (55) »
1. David Wallace
February 28, 2007
10:42 AM
I don’t beleive in music piracy but … I had almost 40 gigs of music I had mishmashed together from genuine downloads, dubious downloads, copies of CD’s I own and stuff I had flagrently stolen.
This Sunday past, I deleted the lot. I did a similar thing with a bunch of software I have on my PC that I have not paid for and continue to use after the trial period has expired and/or I located a ‘crack’ on the internet to faux-register it.
It was not a flippant choice, but it was the right choice. And to be perfectly honest, it was a liberating choice. I did not simply sigh dramatically and click delete, but prayed, comitted the act to God and did it with a grateful, if not quite joyful, heart.
I can only recommend this as an act of worship. By doing this to God’s glory and not as a begruding act of compliance, it can act in and of itself as a spiritual boost for the week. It’s worked that way for me.
2. wes
February 28, 2007
10:45 AM
you must type fast or get up really EARLY….long, but good post. Love the Pearcy plug, that’s one of my favorites.
One thing I didn’t see addressed here is the rules for DRM ie.. Digital Rights Management. After purchasing the CD according to DRM can a person then rip that CD to any other device (ipod, hd, other cd…etc)? What does one do when laws that don’t yet exist or they do exist but are very vague? When does Fairplay end in sin?
3. Brian
February 28, 2007
11:11 AM
Tim:
Thank you for addressing this issue. It has been neglected for too long. Christians, of all people, should be way above reproach here.
As we get closer to tax time in the US I have an idea for a similar topic…:-)
Brian
4. Jane
February 28, 2007
11:23 AM
There’s a lot of cheap ways to download music legally, I’m surprised this is still an issue. Itunes for one - you pay $.99 per song, and they have a large selection of Christian songs. You can purchase an entire album for $10. I’m assuming some of the proceeds do eventually make their way back to the artist.
5. Tim Challies
February 28, 2007
11:28 AM
“One thing I didn’t see addressed here is the rules for DRM ie.. Digital Rights Management.”
I think there are times when we may need to go with the spirit of the law rather than the letter. This applies when the laws are vague or do not cover a certain context. For example, say I have an old cassette of a particular band. Can I have a friend who has the MP3s give those to me? What if I have a CD and someone steals it? Can I keep my MP3 copies of that album? There are some areas where we may need to exercise discernment…but only where the law is not clear! Where it is clear we obey immediately and joyfully…
6. jmark
February 28, 2007
12:14 PM
Nice one Tim - this is one of my bugbears too.
Here is an area Christians can be seen to be different in.
7. Dave
February 28, 2007
12:28 PM
As to things being illegal, you may be somewhat (although not fully) incorrect. This definitely applies in the US, but Canada brought in some Private Copying changes to the Canadian Copyright Act which change the legal situation in Canada.
In Canada copying music may not be so much illegal as unethical (although changes were also brought into the Copyright Act imposing levies on recording media in exchange for this).
8. Josh Rives
February 28, 2007
12:34 PM
This is not as big of a problem on a mass scale now because the P2P companies are shutting down. The main way they are traded now is through bittorrent, which is not as popular among the less computer savvy as things like Napster were. The only other way is very small scale such as getting the songs directly from friends. So this post seems slightly out dated since the golden age of music piracy is over.
9. Brian
February 28, 2007
12:55 PM
Tim, everything you say in your post is correct. But let me pick at something that is unsaid: you write, “So the times are changing and will change. The music companies are going to have to stop swimming against the current and are going to have to figure out a way of surviving and thriving in this new world. They can do both, but will need to be willing to adapt and let go of some long-held but outdated ways of doing business. To this point they have been stubborn, but they will change. They will have to.”
Surely you must see that those who illegally pirate music are the ones causing this change. If everyone obeyed the law, there would be no iTunes at all and no downloading of any kind on the Internet. The music companies would just (stubbornly, as you indicate) continue selling CDs. So the pirates, while certainly disobeying God’s laws and the human laws which flow from God’s, are actually doing a service to the consumer, putting pressure on music publishers to change their dinosaur ways.
And this is the part of the equation that is missing from discussions about music downloading/piracy. An argument can be made (a good one, IMO) that the music companies are guilty of something like usury, which the Bible also condemns. They are overcharging for the product. When formats change from LPs to tapes, to cds, to iTunes, they require you to pay full price again—no “upgrade” discounts, as in software sales.
And they were (until the pirates came) getting rich on the back of artists. That’s why many artists don’t mind, and in some cases encourage, piracy—the artists make money selling concert tickets, not selling CDs—except for superstars who can negotiate a fairer split of the music sale. Perhaps James 5:4 applies here, though it is clearly not a direct application.
I hate writing this because it feels like I’m defending music piracy. I’m not; I think the Bible is clear on this and your application is correct. There is no moral defense for stealing music. I think, however, that music publishers do not have all the moral high ground on their side.
To rectify this, artists and consumers should have used legal means—either controlling their own distribution, negotiating fairer compensation with music publishers, or both artists and consumers lobbying federal governments for more just copyright laws. Or just using the free market—don’t buy music until the price declines. Each of these is problematic, too, however.
What do you think?
10. Paul Dirks
February 28, 2007
1:30 PM
Hi Tim,
Good thoughts and I agree on a level of personal conviction. I do not download music that is not declared by the artist to be free. Dave however points out that in Canada, things are no longer black and white on the issue with recent rulings. Another issue which muddies the water is the Canadian levy on blank media- which is specifically because of pirating. The music industries in other parts of the world collectively howled when Canada introduced the levy- because it set a dangerous precedent. You can’t (or shouldn’t) tax something that is illegal. I remain personally convicted (especially as a musician) that I ought not pirate music, but I have become much softer on the issue recently because it seems that there is some decent reasoning (in Canada at least) behind those Christians who feel it is OK.
Paul Dirks
www.bishopandmulholland.com
11. justin
February 28, 2007
1:32 PM
Tim,
Preach on, brother, preach on.
12. Chuck
February 28, 2007
1:56 PM
Dave wrote:
“In Canada copying music may not be so much illegal as unethical (although changes were also brought into the Copyright Act imposing levies on recording media in exchange for this).”
How does copying for personal use in compliance with the Copyright Act constitute an unethical practice? I’m not a lawyer but I rather understand copyright law as a kind of contract between the producer and the buyer the terms of which are not set out on an individual basis but by the government for all. Therefore, if the government says that one of the terms of the transaction of buying a CD is that the buyer also gets the right to make and keep one copy of the music on that disc for his or her own use, how is it unethical to abide by that condition?
13. Bethany
February 28, 2007
2:14 PM
Thank you Tim!
If you know any college students, you can refer them to Ruckus (www.rucksus.com). It allows them to use their school email to “download” a wide variety of music (over 2 million songs) but the songs cannot be transferred to a device (mp3 player, iPod, CD) unless purchased. It’s helpful to listen to full songs and/or albums before deciding to buy them on iTunes or wherever else!
14. Charles Churchill
February 28, 2007
2:14 PM
Tim,
Excellent post. My understanding of the Biblical underpinnings of copyright is the idea that the laborer is worthy of their hire, and that the laborer can sell that right as well. Does that mesh with your thinking on the subject?
Thanks for the post,
Charles Churchill
15. Bethany
February 28, 2007
2:14 PM
oops! www.ruckus.com
16. Bethany
February 28, 2007
2:15 PM
I need to consolidate my comments.
www.yourmusic.com is a “subscription” program where you buy at least one CD a month from their selection… at $6.99 with no shipping charges. For those who like buying the actual CD… it’s a good, cheap way!
Sorry to keep leaving comments!
17. Joel
February 28, 2007
2:31 PM
I use a P2P program for file-sharing, but I have a policy that I won’t upload or download anything that’s available for sale. I have a fair amount of out-of-print vinyl (much of it rare early CCM), and I’ve made some of that available, figuring that the artist would rather have it heard than not. If I can find a source that sells it, however, I won’t share or copy it.
I also have downloaded some stuff that I already had on either vinyl or casette, as I think that falls morally within the realm of making a copy for your own use. It’s a lot easier to put it on a CD for car listening from MP3 than to try to record it into the computer from the turntable.
18. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
February 28, 2007
2:45 PM
I also have downloaded some stuff that I already had on either vinyl or casette, as I think that falls morally within the realm of making a copy for your own use.
So, if I have an old, beat up cassette copy or scratched up vinyl copy of something, it is okay to download for free a digital copy of that same title?
Would that transfer over to video? Let’s say I had a very old VHS tape of something…would it be okay - assuming it would be available - to download a free dvd, blue ray or hd version of the same title?
No agenda here, just trying to see what the thinking is on this.
19. wes
February 28, 2007
2:57 PM
If I buy the CD or pay for the download, shouldn’t I have the right to play it on all other media players I own, that will play it? DRM says……’nope, thats against the law’.
The lauding of freedom (to sin) through anything opensource and web 2.0 is great in cultivating creativity but, it also creates even more temptation.
20. Daniel H.
February 28, 2007
3:16 PM
I’ve wondered also about convenience - I have a bunch of regular store-bought CD’s in my car. When I want to listen to them at home I need to carry them back and forth between the car. Is it illegal for me to just download them to my computer so I can listen inside without having to go out and get them from the car? I haven’t done it because my understanding is that it is still considered illegal. But I’d have no intentions of putting them on the internet or sharing. Would that be alright?
21. Tim Challies
February 28, 2007
3:33 PM
“In Canada copying music may not be so much illegal as unethical (although changes were also brought into the Copyright Act imposing levies on recording media in exchange for this).”
I think, in this case, that the spirit of the law would tell us that we need to refrain from copying music. If Canada told me that I was free to steal my neighbor’s car, I still wouldn’t do it.
“So, if I have an old, beat up cassette copy or scratched up vinyl copy of something, it is okay to download for free a digital copy of that same title?”
Technically I believe this is not legal because you have paid for a certain format and certain quality of recording. However, this may be something of a grey area.
22. Chris
February 28, 2007
3:48 PM
“Itunes for one - you pay $.99 per song, and they have a large selection of Christian songs. You can purchase an entire album for $10. I’m assuming some of the proceeds do eventually make their way back to the artist.”
iTunes has a standard agreement with record labels to provide them with about 70 cents of the 99 cents the customer pays to purchase a track in one of their music stores.
Depending on an artist’s contract with their record label (a whole other kettle of fish which needs to be dealt with on top of the piracy issue) they may receive 7-15 cents out of the 70 cents iTunes pays to the label.
There are ways for independant artists to secure “digital distribution” with iTunes, Rhapsody, Napster and other online music stores which enable them to keep between 50 and 70 cents from each sale of one of their songs.
The real beauty of digital distribution is that there is no longer any requirement for any kind of PHYSICAL reproduction of a CD. As an artist, I can go to a studio and produce a radio quality song, send that song to radio stations, put the song on my MySpace profile, get the song on iTunes and never spend one dollar on making a physical disc.
23. Jonathan Edwards
February 28, 2007
4:07 PM
Tim - thanks for this. I openly confess that I download music from off-shore places (almost certainly illegal), copy rented movies, install copied software, etc. My reason (excuse) is because I can - I would never pay for software or movies that I deem excessive (Office, Photoshop). Until now, I have either ignored the issue or made rationalizations. From today forward, I have no excuse (if I ever legitimately did). As I thought of the idea of ridding myself of unlawful media (most), it made me concerned - could I live w/o it? I think it brings up something else in my life - my dependency on media vs God. Media fills up the majority of my life (TV, PC, ipod, DVD). I wonder how many are like me - I have no problem making black/white judgments on things I have no interest in (politics etc), but on things I hold dear to, not so much. I can justify anything. I will be praying earnestly for the courage and conviction to rid my life of not only unlawful content, but my dependency on it. I agree this is not a conscience issue - it’s simple. Comply or rebel - and as for gray areas, the way I handle those in other areas of my life is just to flee them. Would rather err on the side of glorifying God than indulging my flesh. Thanks for listening!
24. Charles Churchill
February 28, 2007
4:33 PM
Jonathan Edwards said:
As I thought of the idea of ridding myself of unlawful media (most), it made me concerned - could I live w/o it? I think it brings up something else in my life - my dependency on media vs God. Media fills up the majority of my life (TV, PC, ipod, DVD). I wonder how many are like me
Jonathan,
You are definitely not alone in this. I myself have at times been convicted of the place that all these things have in my life and have considered chucking them all, only to be confronted by the question: But how would I spend my time? What would my family do for fun.
I liken it to when there is a power outage for any significant period of time. Initially, family members are frustrated, they walk into rooms and toggle light switches out of habit, sit down at the computer and stare morosely at the dead screen, they complain about the outage. Slowly though, they begin to adjust, they play board games, they read by candlelight, they tell stories, they (gasp) talk to one another. At some point, someone might even say, “I wish the power would go out more often” or “we never do these things anymore.” But the instant that power is restored, the party breaks up, everyone is back to their own room, to the computer or the television set.
So thanks for speaking up (even if that’s not exactly what you meant). I’ve got to give this some more thought.
25. Ann
February 28, 2007
4:55 PM
I have a question - is it legal to tape shows off the TV for viewing at a later date?
Also are you telling me that if I pay for a download of music on the computer that it is not legal for me to burn it onto a CD to listen to in the car. I have understood (and this may have been in the “old days”) that it was legal to make a copy of a cassette or CD for my personal use (or as a back-up). Has that changed or was that wrong information? If it is wrong I also have some destroying to do!
26. Matthew
February 28, 2007
4:57 PM
Bethany,
I’m a college student with access to Ruckus. I tried it when our SGA paid money to them for access, but I was pretty unimpressed. The Ruckus player was a huge memory hog with all that DRM they have on it and I couldn’t play music anywhere else.
By the way, I haven’t downloaded any music illegally in years. Around 2000-02 in high school I amassed a good sized collection of illegal music. It was so easy to download then and I refused to think of the morality of the situation. Around my senior year in high school, I realized the immorality of downloading music and deleted my entire collection. There’s nothing innately special about those 1s and 0s in downloaded MP3s except that they’re illegal.
Now I use iTunes pretty extensively and it’s definitely worth the few bucks for the ability to download anything no matter how obscure without worrying about servers or servers cutting out. It’s also starting to look like I’ll fall into the Steve Jobs trap and buy an Ipod to play that iTunes stuff in the car.
27. Matthew
February 28, 2007
5:00 PM
Also, to the people asking whether you can burn legally downloaded music onto CDs or if you can rip music off of legally owned CDs, it should be perfectly legal. For example, iTunes let’s you burn up to five CDs with music you’ve downloaded.
28. Chris Hillcoat
February 28, 2007
5:11 PM
A good deal of music is available to stream online as well, through sites such as www.pandora.com, where you create “stations” by selecting your favourite artists, albums etc.
29. Mark
February 28, 2007
5:19 PM
Here’s my take (simplified a bit):
The only moral/ethical problem with downloading copyrighted music without paying for it is when the law of the land forbids it. And for that reason alone, I avoid downloading mp3s that I don’t have authorization to download. Although, it must be said that the cd price levy and the way the recording industry is extorting money out of us (lawsuits, devices taken off the market, raised prices of mp3 players, etc) makes me wonder if the person who illegally downloads small amounts of music is paying more than they are getting for free.
I don’t think an argument can be made that making a copy of copyrighted music in a country where it is legal is unethical. So my obedience of the music copyright laws has nothing to do with agreeing with the law. The alleged string that connects copyright violations to the act of “stealing” is very questionable.
But… the case for the Christians duty to obey the law where he can do so in good conscience is, as Tim pointed out, very strong.
(Thankfully, I have many cost-effective ways to obtain music which are legal: archive.org’s live band archive, emusic.com (great per track system), puretracks.com (another great per track system), etc.)
Not downloading OR buying copyrighted music is one way to show that you don’t like the current laws while still obeying them. Listening to bands/groups that provide you music on terms that are reasonable and ignoring the others is one way to show that you are serious about your ideological objections to the law. If you go ahead and download music of artists whose distribution policies you despise (even if their hand is forced by their label), you are basically showing that getting the particular music you want is more important than your supposed ideological objections to the law.
Let’s use our frustration with these inconsistent and draconian laws not as an excuse to download copyrighted music, but rather as an excuse to support independant unencumbered musicians!
30. Randy Brandt
February 28, 2007
5:23 PM
>What if I have a CD and someone steals it? Can I keep my MP3 copies of that album?
Tim, that one’s pretty easy. Even though someone has your CD in their possession, you are still the legal owner and therefore still the legal owner of the MP3s.
I hate it when people like church worship leaders say, “Hey, I’ll just copy your CD/DVD” or whatever. Since they don’t seem to understand the theft part, I tell them that as a reviewer, I can’t risk losing the right to keep getting music by giving away copies. That they understand. Weird.
This issue has bugged me since the 70s when I started buying records and we were making 8-track tapes for our cars (although my first car player was one of them new-fangled cassette decks).
31. Charles Churchill
February 28, 2007
5:28 PM
Mark said:
The only moral/ethical problem with downloading copyrighted music without paying for it is when the law of the land forbids it.
I think you will have a hard time arguing that it is ethical to take the work that a man did without paying him for it. Scripture clearly states that a laborer is worthy of his hire and if you have not negotiated with him or if he has not said what he will take for his labor, you have no right to it. Or am I missing something?
32. Chuck
February 28, 2007
5:33 PM
“I think, in this case, that the spirit of the law would tell us that we need to refrain from copying music. If Canada told me that I was free to steal my neighbor’s car, I still wouldn’t do it.”
Tim, the difference is that the Canadian Copyright Act explicitly permits personal copying in one very limited case: that you make and keep only one copy. You can’t make one copy and give it away nor can you make multiple copies to have wherever it’s convenient. As long as you obey that stipulation you are abiding by the explicit letter of the law. The spirit of the law doesn’t enter into it because you’re not trying to fudge it on a technicality. The law explicitly permits you to do this. It is a condition of the Act itself.
Look at it another way. Do you consider tax deductions or the basic personal exception a kind of legalized tax evasion? Probably not. Why? Because they are conditions of man made tax codes. The legislature has the right to offer breaks to taxpayers under stipulated circumstances. As long as you fit the criteria as laid down by the tax code (medical expenses, children, etc.) the government won’t consider you a thief. Well, it’s pretty much the same with copyright. As long as you obey the rules established by the legislature in the first place, you are granted a very limited right to use copyrighted material without being considered a criminal.
How about another example. Outside the UK the KJV is in the public domain whereas in the UK the copyright is held in perpetuity by the Crown. Does that mean that editions published outside the UK are “stolen property”? Just because our laws say it’s okay to publish it, does that mean we should?
33. Joel
February 28, 2007
6:47 PM
Outside the UK the KJV is in the public domain whereas in the UK the copyright is held in perpetuity by the Crown.
Chuck, I didn’t know that. I’ll have to bring it up the next time somebody gives me grief over the pope copyrighting his writings.
34. Joel
February 28, 2007
6:52 PM
So, if I have an old, beat up cassette copy or scratched up vinyl copy of something, it is okay to download for free a digital copy of that same title?
That’s a tricky one, Brian. I hadn’t thought of it from that angle. I think I agree with Tim that it’s a grey area. (Which might just be my rationalizing not wanting to think about it; I don’t know.) :)
35. Dsnyd
February 28, 2007
6:59 PM
Surprised nobody mentioned Allofmp3.com yet or did I miss mention of it? I think that site is one of the biggest debates right now. Apparently legal in Russian and not yet illegal to use from the US yet. CD downloads are just a couple bucks depending on quality you choose.
36. Dan B.
February 28, 2007
9:43 PM
Tim,
Good post. The broader principle in “the law being the law” applies to things beyond this. While many of us could likely say that we would never copy music illegally, could we say the same thing about obeying the traffic laws—specifically, speed limits? (I know I struggle with it).
It is interesting how we even as Christians rationalize our (dis)obedience to such laws as being in some gray area since it would not be in the same realm as murder or stealing (which is “obviously” wrong, right?). But I don’t think that Paul made such a distinction in Romans 13, nor did Jesus when he stated to give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s (acknowledging, as did Paul, that earthly government was placed by God).
37. Steven
February 28, 2007
10:19 PM
I don’t mean anything personal, but does anyone else think it’s a little funny that Jonathan Edwards struggles with pirating music and software?
I didn’t read most of the comments, but that one happened to catch my eye.
38. Mark
February 28, 2007
11:36 PM
Charles Churchill said:
“I think you will have a hard time arguing that it is ethical to take the work that a man did without paying him for it. Scripture clearly states that a laborer is worthy of his hire and if you have not negotiated with him or if he has not said what he will take for his labor, you have no right to it. Or am I missing something?”
From my perspective, you are missing an important distinction here. You are not using “take” in a way that reflects what is happening. Is it unethical to take the work that a man did without paying him for it? It depends on how we understand “take”. Is it unethical to “take” a picture of something which is copyrighted?r use”
Is it unethical to make a rather precise representation of the work of another man if it happens in a country where this is legal AND where no trespass occurs nor is any direct cost or inconvenience is inflicted on the artist? I say this is a grey area at best.
There are many ways to reproduce works, and electronic copies happen to be among the best. What happens when you create a snapshot of data is no different in principle than when you snap your camera or photocopy a page under fair use, its just obviously more accurate. Even modern copyright law will admit that there are occasions where making representations are justified where it benefits the perosn who does it and doesn’t harm the artist (ie. Fair Use). It can be argued that just as a copyright can’t interfere on “fair use” (a copyright that says people can’t quote a sentence from your book, for example) likewise neither can a copyright infringe on the natural right of one to make electronic represenations of things he has purchased. I’m not saying this is indisputable, just plausible.
I’m no arguing for “piracy”, in fact I would argue against it. However, I’m just trying to point out that the view that making representations of others work is unethical and very cultural and didn’t appear on the scene in its present form until very recently. In fact, even if we could eliminiate the technological jargon and translate it into simple language, the vast vajority of humans who ever lived on this planet earth would not understand the case against “copying” software or music for personal use. As far as I can tell, that sort of view of ownership is foreign to all but a couple decades of human history.What I’m saying may sound like it would mean anarchy to the world of music, software, etc. But its really the way mankind has been operating for centuries. And I don’t see any biblical teaching which would imply that making representations of things for personal use is unethical IN AND OF ITSELF (asuming its not against the law of the land, not trespassing, not to the detriment of another)
The labourer is worthy of his hire. That statement is true and a good guideline. But what is ones hire? Does it include representations? Does it include derivative works? It could never cease to end.. and all our salaries or earnings would boil down to illegitimate eventually ;) But before we apply the labourer and his hire to the question of copying things, remember that the “labourer” in this case is merely riding on the shoulders of and “stealing” the work of other labourers, many of who got little or no credit for it, sometimes even against their will.
The modern conception of ownership of “information” is a very hard thing to understand and communicate. It is more cultural than we may be prone to recognize. I think as brothers and sisters in Christ we can discuss these things. We must agree on the need to obey the laws of the land. We may disagree on the ethics of information science. I think that is OK. All positions on this matter need to think through the implications of their view and need to prepared to think “outside of the box”
39. Charles Churchill
March 1, 2007
12:09 AM
Mark,
I don’t deny most of what you say, what I was denying is that the only reason a person should not feel free to copy what someone else has produced is because of civil/criminal law.
Of course, as Solomon says, there is nothing new under the sun, and all data is a derivation of the revelation of God. And yes, God has appointed governments to wield the sword, to make rulings upon His laws to prevent evil.
I just think there is a moral basis for copyright whether there is a law or not.
I also don’t want to deny that you make some very solid points, many of which I agree with.
Thanks for the discussion.
40. Josh
March 1, 2007
8:14 AM
Does it bug anyone else that a company like Sony, which owns Columbia Records, campaigns against music pirating and at the same time manufactures computers with the software and hardware which make pirating possible? Aren’t they talking out of both sides of their mouths?
I attended a Derek Webb concert in November and at one point he said, “If nine people want to chip in $1 each and buy a CD, and burn off eight more copies so you can each have one, that’s fine with me. I’m the copyright owner. I give you permission.”
41. Dr Mike
March 1, 2007
8:52 AM
For me, the determining factor is this: am I taking money out of someone’s pocket?
If I download music (or anything else) without paying for it, I am stealing from the individual or company. If I make a copy of a cd to listen to it on my computer, mp3 player, or whatever other format I might choose, I am not “robbing” them. I wouldn’t pay three or four times to have various formats.
I am not distributing, sharing, selling, or allowing anyone else to have the material for themselves. I don’t allow people to “borrow” the cd and I don’t give cds away, unless it is something in the public domain.
Trust me, this fight is not over the rights of the artists. It’s about money. But if I respect the right of the individual or corporation to make money, I find that I don’t violate the rights of the artists, either.
42. Alan Kurschner
March 1, 2007
10:14 AM
Dr Mike,
I agree with everything you said, but could you give me clarity on your statement,
“I don’t allow people to “borrow” the cd and I don’t give cds away, unless it is something in the public domain.”
i) What is illegal or wrong about lending out something you own?
and
ii) What is wrong with giving away a cd that you own (given that you delete any copies that you possess)?
Thanks,
Alan
p.s. A much needed post Tim, thanks.
43. Chuck
March 1, 2007
10:19 AM
I don’t want to beat a dead horse here but I have found this subject interesting for many years so I’m going to drag it out a little longer.
One thing I want to be clear about is the distinction between someone deciding for himself how the law applies to him and the law itself or the courts setting out clear exceptions. I don’t think that citizens are free to rationalize any and every infringement of copyright but I don’t think every aspect of copyright law is somehow untouchable even by legislators. Therefore I don’t see explicit provisions that legalize personal copying, and I’m speaking specifically of the provisions in the Canadian act, as being at all like saying it’s equivalent to the law making it okay to steal my neighbour’s car. It’s not a case of legal but still unethical. It’s a case of “fair dealing” (or “fair use”).
Maybe the problem is that we think of music recordings as being fundamentally different from print. We shouldn’t. Millions of times everyday the fair dealing provisions of copyright acts around the world are used in every medium that quotes the written word. Every blogger, every magazine, every newspaper, ever radio station, every television network, every student, every book reviewer takes advantage of the permission to quote from published sources under fair dealing exceptions. If we’re going to take the all-or-nothing approach to copyright protection and say that copying your own CDs is legal but unethical, then we’re going to have to stop all quotation for the same reason because everyone who does it is taking advantage of the legal permission to do so. The only difference is that one thing we’ve been doing for centuries and the other only for decades. If we’re going to say that the law doesn’t have the moral authority to authorize copying CDs then it doesn’t have the moral authority to authorize the copying of someone else’s words.
44. Ann Addison
March 1, 2007
10:29 AM
Tim, thanks for addressing pirating as sin. “Everyone” does it, it seems like a small sin, who is it hurting…these objections are irrelevant while it is still against the law. Popular use of digital media is causing major changes in this area. I look forward with great anticipation to the changes. The Sony DRM fiasco has justly made the industry aware that “locks” do not solve this problem. As you can see from my blog, http://mousenaround.wordpress.com/, I love digital audio and video. They are so convenient, tidy and dust free! :)
I have ripped my entire lifetime collection of CDs to my computer and enjoy them digitally now… while I keep the CDs in a box in the back of a closet. I don’t share the CDs or the files… just listen to them from my computer or mp3 player. I think that the spirit of the law is that personal convenience is fine… sharing/ stealing is not. The main thing I listen to these days are free podcasts from people like John Piper.
45. Travis Seitler
March 1, 2007
12:28 PM
“Bob links to a Barna report (link) from 2004 showing that only 1 in 10 Christian teenagers believe that music piracy is morally wrong.”
That doesn’t mean they’re pirating. It just means they don’t see a moral issue with music piracy as music piracy. Whether they see lawbreaking as a moral issue is an entirely different matter. If it were “legal” to make infinite copies of an artist’s song, 9 out of 10 teens would see no moral prohibition on the act.
Tim, this is a good topic to discuss, but it really seems like you and Bob Kauflin are glossing over much of the debate. For instance: OT law required field owners to leave a portion of their crops for others to glean. Failing to do so was not only illegal—it was sin. There was no sin in a person gleaning from another’s field, so long as they only took what they could carry. Bringing containers (to harvest enough to resell) was prohibited. In the same way, there’s a vast difference between gleaning a song and reselling a song without the copyright holder’s permission.
So long as an act is illegal—and unnecessary for serving God—a Christian ought not do it. The State, however, is not the final determiner. The State is not God, and its prohibitions ought not carry the permanence of God’s prohibitions in our minds.
46. wfseube
March 1, 2007
12:28 PM
The phrase “fair use” has come up a few times, and I think it’s important to understand that doctrine, at least for those of us who live in the USA, since several of the comments/objections could be classified as falling under “fair use”. For example, “time shifting” was brought up (making recordings of something so it could be enjoyed at a different time) and has been cited in courts in the USA as “fair use” in recent years. IANAL, but I’d also consider obtaining a digital copy of a song from an old vinyl album as “fair use” since I already bought a copy of the song (I’ve done that numerous times for old 70’s rock and roll stuff that I have on vinyl).
Learn more about the fair use doctrine at Wikipedia
47. Mark
March 1, 2007
12:37 PM
Charles: Thank you for your gracious and well-reasoned comments.
Dr Mike: I understand what you are saying and I can see why you would come to that conclusion. However, I feel that if what you stated were to be consistently applied, you have no grounds to differentiate between copying your cd to your computer and copying it to another persons computer. Remember, I’m not talking about legality, but ethics. The grounds you supply for classifying friend-copying as stealing and your own copying as justified are very arbitrary. Strictly speaking, I don’t see any difference in the two activities technically or in principle. You’ve made a arbitrary distinction based on the harmlessness of what you are doing, but it is an artificial distinction and those copying to their friends can just as easily and justifyably apply the same cop-out.
Again, I feel I must post a disclaimer. I do not condone breaking the law, I’m just leaning to the opinion that the reasons to not copy music are only ethical in the sense that they are included in obeying the law, and in a culture where this was not illegal it would be permissible.
48. Joel
March 1, 2007
4:34 PM
There are many ways to reproduce works, and electronic copies happen to be among the best. What happens when you create a snapshot of data is no different in principle than when you snap your camera or photocopy a page under fair use, its just obviously more accurate.
We could have some fun tying this to the Second Commandment, no? Is there a difference between a graven image made of stone and one made of pixels? How about a data image?
(Just for the fun of stirring up the hornets’ nest.)
49. Tom
March 1, 2007
5:53 PM
Just as I was reading this blog post (which is quite good, Tim), I received a generated email from the band Switchfoot giving updates on touring and such. One thing that they mentioned is that they have asked fans to willingly post and distribute live bootleg copies of their music from their shows at
http://switchfootbootlegs.com/
All of the music at this site is completely free to download and you can even get it as a free podcast.
I think that part of the problem with teens and their views on pirating stem partially from situations like this. Here is a completely legal way to get free music from a great band but teens don’t typically think outside the box and realize that not all websites are legally free.
50. benarbour03
March 2, 2007
6:27 AM
Hey guys,
It seems I’m a little late to the discussion, but we don’t always have internet access here in rural China.
A few qualifiers: I don’t copy any music, movies, or other media that I have not purchased and obtained through the recognized acceptable methods. So, what I have to say is not a defense of what many of you deem an immoral lifestyle.
However, there is a significant technicality that no one has addressed - the laws were passed at the request of record labels who claim a copyright on the music (supposedly on behalf of musicians). However, there has, to my knowledge, never been a ruling in court concerning these matters. Instead, all lawsuits have been settled before trial. Why?
I’ve got a guess…
Because artists and musicians don’t want to give up the rights to their music!!! If a lawsuit was to occur, and the defendant be found guilty, there would be a legal precedent set stating that musicians do not own the rights to their music - the label does!!! Now, that is ridiculous.
On the other hand, I’m not suggesting that we follow the letter instead of the spirit of the law. I’m only saying that this is a little more complicated than a reference to a civil law and then bring Rom. 13 into discussion, and it’s settled.
I have a few friends in the Christian music industry. Ross King vehemently opposes the copy of his music - unless they are “test driving” it to see if they want to purchase - so they try it for a week, then either delete or buy. However, some other friends say that they don’t mind when people copy their music “illegaly.”
Since it is the musicians, not the record labels, who own the rights of their music, isn’t the ethical position, at least from a Christian standpoint, about loving our neighbors out of a love for God as we would want to be loved? This allows us to respect the wishes of musicians, and not the record labels they are signed with, who passed a law trying to put even more money in the company’s pockets while ripping off the musicians who really deserve the credit. After all, they own the rights…
Any thoughts?
51. Travis Seitler
March 2, 2007
7:07 AM
“Since it is the musicians, not the record labels, who own the rights of their music”
Well, that’s one of those gray areas. In many cases, it really is the label that owns the copyright, because the musician(s) sold the rights to the label. In most other cases, the label still owns the right to a particular recording of a song or performance.
52. Steve Camp
March 2, 2007
10:55 AM
Good post Tim.
A few clarifying thoughts:
1. It is not illegal to rip a CD, cassette or vinyl recording to your own computer and convert them to your iTunes file or other MP3 devices.
2. The issue is not format, but front end purchasing. Once you buy a CD, you may convert it into any format you would like to use for listening or storage under a few basic conditions: you may not resell it for profit to another; you may not duplicate it and send it out in mass prohibiting others from buying it because they’ve obtained for free from you; that you do not alter its original context to make your own “bootleg” or “best of” products that once again, you distribute for your own profit or that prohibits the producers/artists/labels of the original product from rightly receiving the just return from their investment of talent, time, and treasure.
3. As to Christian music, we should always go one step further in integrity and to matters of law: i.e. - we should not reduce our music to simple commerce, but if its genuine ministry, give our music away for whatever people can afford. Why? Because it is His gospel, His Word, His truth, His name, His glory; and man should not turn into retail merchandise that which the Lord has given to us freely.
I firmly believe that this would demand that we remove the commercialism from its identification. Jesus is not just another commodity for sell. My dear late friend Keith Green adopted this policy back in the early 1980’s; I also started doing this back in 1994 wiht my CD’s. I buy them from the distributors which the price includes all royalty bearing parties, the label pays out accordingly to the publishers, writers and artists their proper royalties; but when I offer my CD’s for “purchase”, it is on the basis “whatever you can afford and if you cannot afford anything, we will send it to you for free.”
4. Christian ministry should not parrot the secular industry in music, publishing, etc. It should be governed my a biblical paradigm. Ministry needs to remain ministry and should “do business” under a biblical ethic and worldview.
Could you imagine David making an industry of the Psalms? Or of Levitical worship? What about Paul charging a group of churches to receive a new “epistle” demanding they pay a fee before getting God’s Word? Could imagine if the Lord charged the people coming to the hillside to hear Him preach?
But in today’s westernized Christianity, it is not only acceptable, but demanded.
Honor God; honor His Word; obey the laws; keep ministry, ministry.
“Freely we have received; freely we must give.”
IMHO,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7
53. Joel
March 2, 2007
11:30 AM
Steve, I wondered if anybody was going to bring up Keith Green. I didn’t realize you were doing the same thing.
54. Travis Seitler
March 2, 2007
12:46 PM
“Could you imagine David making an industry of the Psalms? Or of Levitical worship? What about Paul charging a group of churches to receive a new “epistle” demanding they pay a fee before getting God’s Word? Could imagine if the Lord charged the people coming to the hillside to hear Him preach?”
Mr. Camp hit the nail on the head with this one!
55. sb
March 3, 2007
4:17 AM
well said Steve Camp