Nice article, one question though. I know you addressed the argument that the creator of the work won't lose anything if you download it illegitimately, but what about when neither the creator nor the publisher would gain anything if one obtained it legitimately? I have some concert songs I downloaded on my iPod, the artist wouldn't make any money if I somehow obtained the songs another way and one of the songs actually lacks a studio version. Should I delete those (being a Christian), based on your argument? I've asked this before and gotten different answers.
Thanks for taking the time to read it Gio, and I'm glad you liked it. That's a good question. First off, if you're saying there's no possible way to pay the artist, that makes the problem a bit harder. It's difficult to see why you shouldn't download something if you can't even give compensation in the first place.
Based on *my* argument, found in section IIC, we'd have to conclude that, if the artist placed restrictions on the downloading and distribution of the content, then it's their right to place such restrictions and we ought to respect them. However, if no such restrictions have been placed, I can't see anything wrong with downloading songs (such as a bootleg from a concert).
However, I would be much less adamant on this conclusion than, say, the issue of plain downloading a cd that you're supposed to buy in the store. It's only supported by one of my arguments, the one in IIC, so the case for this is much less strong. If you check back I'm interested: what arguments have you heard, from both sides? Blessings.
"what arguments have you heard, from both sides? "
On the side that I shouldn't, I've heard the claims that I didn't "pay for the tickets" or that the artist hadn't authorized them to be downloaded.
On the flipside, I've heard that the artist hasn't technically posed restrictions, as there have been no sort of removal requests, and that some artists use bootlegs to their advantage.
3 comments:
Nice article, one question though. I know you addressed the argument that the creator of the work won't lose anything if you download it illegitimately, but what about when neither the creator nor the publisher would gain anything if one obtained it legitimately? I have some concert songs I downloaded on my iPod, the artist wouldn't make any money if I somehow obtained the songs another way and one of the songs actually lacks a studio version. Should I delete those (being a Christian), based on your argument? I've asked this before and gotten different answers.
Thanks for taking the time to read it Gio, and I'm glad you liked it. That's a good question. First off, if you're saying there's no possible way to pay the artist, that makes the problem a bit harder. It's difficult to see why you shouldn't download something if you can't even give compensation in the first place.
Based on *my* argument, found in section IIC, we'd have to conclude that, if the artist placed restrictions on the downloading and distribution of the content, then it's their right to place such restrictions and we ought to respect them. However, if no such restrictions have been placed, I can't see anything wrong with downloading songs (such as a bootleg from a concert).
However, I would be much less adamant on this conclusion than, say, the issue of plain downloading a cd that you're supposed to buy in the store. It's only supported by one of my arguments, the one in IIC, so the case for this is much less strong. If you check back I'm interested: what arguments have you heard, from both sides? Blessings.
"what arguments have you heard, from both sides? "
On the side that I shouldn't, I've heard the claims that I didn't "pay for the tickets" or that the artist hadn't authorized them to be downloaded.
On the flipside, I've heard that the artist hasn't technically posed restrictions, as there have been no sort of removal requests, and that some artists use bootlegs to their advantage.
Post a Comment