/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>608833

I mean, we are supposed to obey the government (unless it tells us to go against God), but aren't we supposed to share? I don't know how to feel about this, honestly, that's why I'm asking here.

>>608830

no because it hurts the artist

>>608834

this

>>608836

Wait, are you saying that it's good because it hurts the artist? Have you misread the OP question?

As for hurting the artist, if we're going this route, using an adblocker while listening to music on youtube would also be a sin. If the artist even receives compensation for music on youtube, that is, I don't know about that.

Or what if I borrowed a CD to a friend and he didn't like it? He might also have bought it if I had not borrowed it to him.

>>608830

Hebrews 13:16 And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.

Proverbs 19:17 Whoever is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will reward them for what they have done.

Deuteronomy 15:8 but you shall freely open your hand to him, and shall generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.

>>608835

Well, that's interesting. However, most CDs (and films too, I assume) have a "unauthorised copying prohibited" warning. Should this also be considered?

>>608840

Sorry, meant to reply to this post >>608839

>>608836

>it hurts the artist

Are you from the EU parliament?

>>608839

This more or less. Since piracy is technically outright duplication and not the removal of an item from one person’s possession to another, is basically sharing.

However, the difference between sharing a son from Taylor Swift who has a combined wealth greater than all of Christian combined unless the pope shitposts here and Annie Catholic who found a calling to music as her way of praise but is dirt poor beyond keeping her instruments working unless her music sells (though she would more realistically get subsidized by her church) is piracy encourages neglecting the latter of reward for her labors when she is in need

>>608850

I see. So, unless the artist is really poor or something, you're saying that it's ok, even when the government says that it's not, since the bible seems to be in favor of it?

Also, would be nice if someone could also answer this >>608840

I've pirated many business courses. The ones that were worthwhile, I paid for afterward. As far as Jewlywood goes, they get none of my money whatsoever. The only time I've gone to the movies in the past decade was when Mel made Hacksaw Ridge. I will see the Passion sequel, and that will probably be it for me for life, unless we can have a worldwide expulsion of jews.

Piracy, which is making money off of a reproduction of someone else's work, is 100% stealing, therefore sinful.

Filesharing, however, is not, assuming that there is no profit being made off the act of sharing the file.

TL;DR, you can share a copy of an album or an ebook with your friends, but it's sinful to charge them money for it. Hope that helps.

>>608857

This.

IIRC one of the Creative Commons licenses covers this sort of sharing.

>>608857

Okay, but you said "with your friends", what about sharing a whole folder where anyone could download something?

Another thing I've been thinking about are the torrenting websites themselves. If I downloaded someting off a torrenting website, and I do not know whether that website is involved with anything criminal aside from piracy, would it be sinful to download from that website?

If it is, should I replace the files I got from there with ones obtained by means where I am rather sure that the owner of the website/the program is not involved in any other crimes?

>>608860

In my opinion, as long as the site owner or the person(s) sharing aren't making a profit off of the files themselves, then it's not sinful.

There is a probability of sinning from any sites you are not familiar with. Ideally, you would go to the means where the site/program is not involved in crime, before broadening your search to include potentially sinful website.

Also of note, downloading porn is sinful, but that's because it's a sin of lust as opposed to stealing.

>>608863

I see, I guess this also includes the one I've been using since there are ads (which I have blocked, but I suppose that's not relevant). Should I try to replace them or is it enough if I just stop downloading from there?

>>608865

Ceasing from downloading from that source should suffice, I'd think. If it really eats at you, pray and repent, and then go along and replace the files, if possible.

>>608866

Okay, thanks for the answer.

Another thing that I'd like to ask, that's not also relevant to the OP, but in general: Assuming that it turns out that filesharing is indeed sinful, would God be more likely to forgive me for it when he sees that I have tried to make sure that I acted according to his will?

I'm not sure if this is easy to understand as I put it, basically, assuming that piracy is indeed wrong, would it make a difference to God if I had just pirated without thinking about it or if I had considered what he thinks about it before doing so?

>>608867

I'm going to be honest here and tell you that I don't know enough to give a good answer. This is a question you would want to ask a priest, methinks.

>>608869

Oh, ok. I have asked a priest something similar to that once, he said that God takes the circumstances of a person's action into account, but I still thought that I should ask.

Anyway, thanks for the answers. May God bless all of you!

>>608860

You really don't know if any store or place you give your money is involved in anything criminal. If you're a burger, you know for a fact that your tax dollars go toward illegal wars that benefit only the descendants of those that literally murdered God Himself.

Depends what you're sharing:

sharing porn is one thing not sinful because you're depriving pornographers of revenue.

sharing audio bible readings is another sinful unless you send in your tithe.

Piracy is making a copy, while theft is stealing the original. It's not a loop hole, the context is important.

>>608836

>no because it hurts the artist

It can hurt them but gives them a lot of exposure, granting them more finance from people who want to support them.

What about the ISPs? I don't know what their contracts look like exactly, but I imagine that they don't approve of filesharing.

>>608834

In the New Testament there's only two atributions of the State. Honor the just and punish the evil. Nothing is said about full submission to the government's will.

>>608895

>>608892

Even IF it isn’t theft, that doesn’t mean it is ok

>>609023

> I get the arguments in this thread about filesharing not being actual theft, but on the other hand, what about if it is unlawful?

Indeed, this is the crux of the matter, and Romans 13:1 seems to tell us that we must obey the law. The only possible loophole would be if the law commands us to sin. It is no sin to pay for entertainment, unless that entertainment is sinful, in which case you shouldn’t be taking part in it at all.

Yes.

The question is how far is wrong? As I understand it, most everything is given copyright when created, even personal works (although they need to be registered to hold water). I assume breaking any sort of a copyright is a sin as an infringement of someone else's intellectual property, so it seems like we might be guilty of theft most of the time we open an image or do a similar action involving downloading or viewing a copyrighted file.

>Are piracy and filesharing sinful?

Robbery on the high seas is sinful. Filesharing is not.

>is copying a series of over-priced 1s and 0s sinful?

>>609088

> You can break the law if goods are being sold for too high a price

>>609090

A number and information in general are not goods.

>>609095

> It’s ok to break the law if you think the legal cost for some form of entertainment is too high

>>609090

>implying there are any legitimate governments on this earth

>>609098

>functional illiteracy

I'd say no. You should typically obey the customs and laws of a country you're in. However when a government becomes overly nanny state in this regard, you don't have to accept it infringing your property or privacy rights

>>609126

How about you actually respond to my argument? If I type out a post which supports the existence of Christ but it has a spelling error in it, does that make me wrong? Obviously not. So if you don’t have an argument, I’m going to assume that you know you’re wrong and just won’t admit it.

>>609132

>he's still going

Have fun being retarded I guess

>>609142

I come on this board for discussion. Will you actually talk to me as a fellow Christian, actually respond to what I’m saying? How can you justify breaking the law because you don’t want to pay for something?

What about this?

>>608912

If a contract with a company or a person prevents us from doing stuff like sharing, should we still follow it?

>>609142

Also anon I’ve noticed that the only actual argument you’ve made in the thread was to imply that it’s never sinful to disobey ZOG. Logically speaking, since Western governments are all ZOG, that means that according to you it’s perfectly acceptable to commit murder, deal drugs, burn down buildings etc because we don’t have to obey ZOG. Which is obviously nonsense. So literally the only argument you’ve contributed to this thread is no good whatsoever.

>>609155

I think what he is getting at is disobedience to tyrants is obedience to god, and should you have any masters on earth their sway over you should always come second to heaven

as for OP information isnt property

>>609156

> I think what he is getting at is disobedience to tyrants is obedience to god

Which simply isn’t true. A person can disobey evil political authorities and still be doing evil themselves.

> and should you have any masters on earth their sway over you should always come second to heaven

This is true. However if the reason for disobeying a law is “this movie costs too much” or “I don’t have enough money to buy this video game” then you are sinning for your own selfish gain, not out of any higher principle. If you want to rebel against the genuine evils of the entertainment industry, actually go all the way and don’t watch that movie or play that game. Otherwise you’re no better than some teenage Marxist shoplifting from Wallmart.

>>609163

>Which simply isn’t true. A person can disobey evil political authorities and still be doing evil themselves.

True. See /pol/ for an example.

>>608830

A lot of bad things happened to me when I pirated, so I don't steal anymore. Folks should do the same.

>>609117

You're completely right, two wrongs never make a right.

ZOG makes garbage, but you're better off not consuming that garbage to begin with. If immoral garbage is not deserving of your money, then it's certainly not deserving of your time.

>>609226

>A lot of bad things happened to me when I pirated, so I don't steal anymore. Folks should do the same.

I have experienced the other side of that coin, where good things have happened when I decided to buy material, rather than pirate it, and did not happen when I pirated it. Talking about business related torrents, not Hollywood.

>>609228

>ZOG makes garbage, but you're better off not consuming that garbage to begin with. If immoral garbage is not deserving of your money, then it's certainly not deserving of your time.

You're right. It's hypocritical to consume this kike garbage, even when you don't pay for it. I'm guilty of this.

What about videogames that are being resold but the original developers are already long-gone and won't receive anything from a legal purchase?

>>609569

1. Is the thing you plan on doing illegal?

2. Would following the law in this case be more sinful than breaking it?

If your answer to 1 is yes and your answer to 2 is no, then don’t do the illegal thing.

>>609582

Emulating Super Mario 64.

It's illegal.

Nobody would lose money since the only portable version of SM64, the NDS version, has already been through its production cycle, as has the NDS itself. The question on my mind then is: since Nintendo wouldn't get money from me from buying the game nor buying the handheld, is it really sinful to emulate the game?

>>609614

i allow myself to do at least that.. idk if thats bad. like ive downloaded fire emblem 4, its an old snes game that was never released in america nor rereleased in english or anything. does japanese law even do anything here?

>>609062

>Even IF it isn’t theft, that doesn’t mean it is ok

All I hear is "I paid full price for a shit game/movie, and now I have to drag everyone else into my failure."

>>608833

This. Strike back at the international jew.

>>609668

You’re not putting forward an argument there pal. Of course it would be easier to break the law instead of paying, and of course certain products are often overpriced, but you’re not making a good case for the morality of digital piracy. This isn’t /v/, you’re going to actually have to defend your views.

>>609719

Terrible argument my friend. See >>609155, >>609163 and >>609228

>>609614

If there’s no legal way to buy it, then I guess it isn’t sinful.

>>608830

>the modern state was founded by anti-chuch (satanic) priest-genociding groups, not the same as for the legitimate power saint paul encountered. So it's not a sin to desobey him.

>the same state makes laws on every fucking things (10 500 laws and 127 000 decrees now in my country) and I don't count international laws and laws of others countries. It's not a sin to desobey this abusive "parent" on some detail.

>by downloading you hurt no-one, steal no-one, do no harm, it just permit to stay out of an abusive business basing itself on a made up principle of copyright, that never existed on earth that suddenly appeared to defend this lucrative business in order to maximize profits over the time. Even for books the copyright owner haven't wrote, etc…

>you still respect autority, don't harm civilian order,… you respect saint paul's point.

>you still give money for the independant/deserving artist.

it doesn't hurt charity, so that's not a sin.

>>608830

I would say no. I'll try not to be talmudic but I'll probably fail, since my mind still holds some vestiges of my former judeophilia

"Piracy" (I'm quoting, since it's a manufactured term with an agenda) and filesharing aren't theft because ideas and information aren't property. Property is emergent and is delimited by certain scarce Material divisions. Intellectual "Property" is not emergent, it is mandated by State fiat and is defined by whatever the court Cathedral says it is that day. When your and others' property can be or not be your and others' property all on the whims of State mandarins and simply disappears without it, it's no property at all.

So, since I"P" isn't "P" at all, it doesn't make any sort of pragmatic or semantic sense to call it theft.

The only place I'd see this being sinful is if the piracy or filesharing is of a file that contains information that induces or is used in sin (i.e. pornography, murder knowledge for malicious use rather than /k/ defence types), or if the material is mandated by State fiat as illegal (CP) or, depending on your theology as to the relation betwen State and Divinity/"Render unto Caesar" thoughts, which is Divine fiat.

>>609791

> the modern state was founded by anti-chuch (satanic) priest-genociding groups, not the same as for the legitimate power saint paul encountered.

What legitimate power did Paul encounter? The Jewish authorities? The Romans? Both powers were undoubtedly evil, and there were no Christian governments at the time.

>Is it a sin to download a series of motion pixels and pixels

No.

>>609762

First the term "digital piracy" is a loaded term. When I download "copyrighted information" without paying for it, I am in no way stealing from the "rights" holder, I am making a copy.

Second the ideas of intellectual property, and copyrights are ambiguous at best. Under what conditions does information become such that it is immoral for anyone but a select few to produce copies of it? What kinds of information is subject to this principal? To what extent can said information be transformed, encoded, or altered while still falling under intellectual property ethics? Is it illegal to memorize a copyrighted book? What if I were to write it back out for personal use? What is the difference between the two other than the storage medium?

>>609842

oh my, I honestly laughed while reading this…but indeed, it's kinda true, he even converted water into wine, so I suppose file sharing/piracy and file conversions are not sins.

Jokes aside, I do not think online piracy is a good thing…probably not a deadly sin, but since it's something we often have to find excuses for, I doubt it's a sinless action.

>>609767

>Depriving money from those who use that money to brainwash people and destroy Christianity is bad.

Are you a cuck? Why give money to (((them)))?

What about all of the unauthorized clips, songs, and sometimes full show being up on YouTube and you watch it? Is that a sin? Just watching or listening to content that someone else uploaded to stream? Oops I did this since YouTube first started, I guess I'm going to hell. Oh fuck, I found a phone cam clip of the new Star Wars movie on Reddit of Super Leia and someone decided to dub the Superman theme over it to make fun the bad scene. I guess I'm going to hell for watching an unauthorized use of a movie clip, even if it's to make fun of it.

You can say >>609228 said about ZOG poison not being worth your time, but sometimes, just SOMETIMES you have to see it to critique certain things so you can be fair and not just one of those stereotypical "Christians" who say "hurr this evil, this part of the devil, even though I never saw it."

Case in point? For a legal example? Reboot The Guardian Code trailer. I knew it was going to be bad, but I had to see it for myself to see how bad it really is and so I can critique it better.

There are software licenses which permit and encourage sharing, files that are free by choice of the creator (Charlie the Duck = best free game ever), legal usages for piracy of copyrighted material as long as the use of the content is transformative or a small snippet for critique reasons (this is in US law, and in many other places too…regardless of how many times Nintendo will try to copyright strike you), legal uses of filesharing when they are no longer in print / the creator is dead and no one claimed the IP rights and so the data is archived for historical reasons, and even cases where the work was completely copyrighted but the creator still let people slap it in a box, sell it, and keep all the money.

See:

- The original Doom, which was copyrighted and yet the creators let people take the game and sell it without having the rights to do so, because they just wanted people to play their game (side-note, I never understood why Doom got so much flack when it came out, it's literally a game about killing demons and destroying satan)

- Companies using piracy in their own products, Nintendo had to use a pirated version of their own product because they lost it in their data warehouse (technically they sold someone else's work too)…also the speaker in this gives a far more complex example of when they pirated and republished something legally:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLWY7fCXUwE

Sharing software is not as easy to compare to the theft of bread or fish from a market cart, and the question of revenue is even more difficult because the law permits legal piracy in multiple cases, providing its within boundaries.

The issue is that someone called this act "piracy", when in fact it is duplication of information.

Piracy originally meant stealing from someone at sea, from their boat:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#Piracy

This is about as warped as the word "gay" no longer meaning "happy".

>>609848

Basically it comes down to this, it's theft if:

- The rights to the software are currently owned by someone, and

- The software is currently advertised somewhere as asking for a price in order to use it, asking for revenue, and that is the ONLY way you can use it, by providing revenue first

It's pretty hard to give revenue to people whom are dead and who's works are just floating around with no true ownership.

You could post a file online with a price on it, pay for 2 years of web hosting, and then die the next day. What happens then?

There's also all those really neat software licenses like postcardware, or nagware, where its possible to give them revenue if you want to but they just let you use it for free anyway, asking for a postcard or just showing a screen on startup (the revenue just pays to remove the screen that shows, saying you have a free version).

The reason it is important for people, especially the more traditional Christians, to know this, is that people are often misinformed about it.

A while back I witnessed a Christian tell someone who didn't understand piracy that just downloading a file was by default theft if you didn't give anyone money for it. I had to inform them later on that this was not the case, and explain to them the actual scenarios in which that is and is not fine…that software is not always a "for revenue" case.

>>609614

Emulators and emulation are legal unless the thing you are emulating is stolen.

See the video linked earlier in this post. Apple had a Playstation emulator sold for Mac many years ago, and there are a plethora of court cases where people try to stop emulators being made…but they are legal so the court case fails.

>>609860

see

>>609861

Your bit about someone dubbing audio over part of a film is fine. That's transformative, and covered by law.

If that wasn't fine, the Bad Lip Reading series would not exist.

>>609861

Sorry, an error in this post.

It's meant to say:

"and that is the ONLY way the owner of the software rights permits you to use it"

not

"and that is the ONLY way you can use it"

>>608834

I wouldn't know about that. Besides tales like Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah refuseing to submit to State Warlording (I'm not a Ayn Randist, but whatever, I'll use the word in a different way), which I guess falls under "going against God", there's also how the State takes your labour product and your wages among other things to go against Him and build a false Cathedral. Your tax money goes to:

1. Bombing Christians in the Middle East: Syria, funding Israel and by extension, Palestinian Christians and those yet to repent, Iraq

2. Funding Sodomites and giving them legal protection when they give the (un)due penalty for their errors. (http://archive.is/GeTzk, http://archive.fo/kcoms)

3. Funding and supporting anti-Christian regimes (China, Saudi Arabia) and crypto-regimes (Modern Western Europe, China, Israel)

4. Funding Mohammedans, Jesuits, Pagans, Illumites, and the Pharisees behind it all.

We are supposed to share, but not to be forced to give it to things listed above. Only Redditors are State-cucked enough to believe things like 18th century Enlightenment state theory, Consent of the Governed, the Social Contract, or that the Government is in our best interest and not their own interest, that Democracy is a good Idea, that Taxation is Donation (which is false) and not theft (also false).

You can share and you should share and maybe even must share. But not by having your Property taken at gunpoint by the Warlords justified by new Pagans who worship the new Cathedral Synagogue and work in the Kafka tunnels of Washington or London, and then have the 0.0001% of the crumbs thrown to a couple of causes with suspect 'noble causes' which inevitably worsen the problem. You do it out of your own heart, because He loves a cheerful giver, He loves an Abel not a Cain.

>>608835

I really want to get into these things. Many Christians in America, i.e. the average evangelical, neo-protestant, SGA types, still have a very shaky grip on theology I still have a shaky grip, but anyway and Christian philosophy particularly in regards to ethics. The Catholics probably have the same problem whether you're an Irish or Italian European Catholic who spent time in day school or if you're a Honduran who is Catholic in name only (I'm sure you've heard of the many Hispanics who follow a syncretic Mesoamerican-Catholic practise and treat icons as idols, yes?).

Technology flips all our understandings and heuristics that worked for fine for the Corporeal Tangible on their heads. Notions of property are shaken, how can you steal a number (i.e. DVD encryption keys, copyrighted material, government leaks, bank's fiat digital ledgers)? Our Aristotelean-Newtonian midbrain assumptions of physical distance, time, space, motion don't make sense when your neighbour could be living in Kazakhstan and the guy living next to you in real life takes longer to respond to you than a Japanese film company.

In the coming years, the global Church will have to think a lot harder about bioethics, about property law, about questions of personhood, identity, and so on. Autonomous cars, Deepfakes, AIs, cloning, stem cells, 3-D printing, life extension, cryogenics, who knows what else the future will bring?

Maybe Marx was right, the material conditions will ch– lol no NO NO funny dude. X^D

>>608838

There is a term in legal dealings and in philosophy in general. Where do things end and begin? I don't like Hume Or also, where do responsibilities end? i.e. Butterfly effect. Academics pls respond?

>>608840

I wouldn't be sure about what the "prohibition" does. No one sees it, but then again, no one sees murders. But no one, in terms of Material, is affected. In forensics, there's a rule that when two things touch, both of them are affected or changed. Not so much so in Digital. A copy of a painting vs a copy of an MP3 are very different. You can never copy the painting, it's physically impossible a la no-cloning but MP3's are arrangements and superstructures we assign to certain electrons, no more real than a shadow on the moon cast by your finger moving faster than light.

You can twist it saying: "Well by doing A, you weren't doing B, which REALLY means you were doing C". But that's Talmudic and there's no way for a court to know if you would or wouldn't do B either way.

>>608846

"Shitty" cyber and copyright laws is a misnomer.

>>608850

This is another place where we need to drop Newtonian metaphors. It's time for big-boy quantum pants What's the digital equivalent of putting a glass up to the door of a concert hall and listening without paying for a ticket?

>>608852

I'm not sure. Think about sitting in front of a poor violinist playing in the park enjoying whatever positive externalities. Then leaving without a single farthing in his violincase. It's a real A-hole move, especially if you can afford to give something, but if you yourself are pressed, who knows? Or what if you're at some large concert. You can't afford a ticket whether or not you're middle class or in rags and skin. Not such an A-hole move if you listen from the room over, would you say?

>>608856

Mel made HR? I would have enjoyed the movie a lot more going into the movie knowing something x2 Austrian theory of action and value. But then again, I wasn't sufficiently knowledgeable.

>worldwide expulsion

jej. Why not put them into medical experimentation? We could build some capital from that and make some ROI instead of burning fuel for not much.

>>608857

What happens when the shared copy gets used by one of your friend's friend's… friend to make a profit? Does it propagate like GPL v2 or v3 or MIT licence? What about your intent? What if you shrugged canary-style saying "Use it how you wish"?

Why is it sinful to charge them money? Don't you own that album or e-book? Physical metaphors break down. The referrents don't match an X-Referrer, Theory of Simulacra, and digital Pauli Exclusion: Whose book is it anyway? and the legal system dereferences pointers with undefined behaviour… That sounded about Landian, sorry.

>>608863

What if the guy you're downloading from got it from someone who was using it for profit?

>>608888

Sharing porn b/c you're not funding porn makers is like selling drugs because you're not funding drug peddlers. Or maybe distribution and production is different?

>>609152

Someone please answer this one.

>>609155

More like Disobey ZOG intersection complement God. So don't murder.

>>609791

>the modern state was founded by anti-church (satanic) priest-genociding groups

>this is radically different from the state that beheaded Paul and crucified Peter and minted martyrdoms like they were coins

What part of

>For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Do you guys not understand?

>>609801

>>609874

The roman empire was based on a legitimate pagan, philosophical tradition (non-christian but pre-christian), these tradition are not specifically anti-christian (as saint Justin said : "logos spermaticos") and the persecutions (they really suffered later after saint Paul, this one only being in Rome) were for political purpose (because christians were seen as undermining the emperor autority). While emperors can be bad, the power, the empire in itself isn't evil. That is not the same as the modern state created by groups, specifically condemned by the Church, for ideas and functioning specificaly anti-christians.

>Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God.

It means you should respect autority, or else it's anarchy.

For the "ordained by God", It validate pre-christian (and pre-evangelization) traditions, but not all the power that WILL be. It sure doesn't apply in the case of the modern state, if it have build himself in rebellion against the previous power that have been putted here by the Church.

Also it's a sin to partake of a buisness that stop everyone to share something for the sake of a virtual right you don't even need to be the autor of.

TL;DR : the roman empire is the encounter of pre-christian tradition with Christ, the modern state is the rejection (even in it's functioning) of God and his Church by apostates that revolted themself against the autority Paul is talking about. So it's not a sin to desobey him on details and mess with his copyright business, it doesn't mean you reject autority.

>>609791

That's what I was also thinking about. Since I don't live in a monarchy, and in a republic the power of the government is legitimised by the people, and not God, it probably shouldn't apply? Also it's post-communist country, as in there was a peaceful tranisition of power between the old communist party and the new democratically elected ones. So, they probably still hold some sway backstage. Would it be more righteous to disobey them in this case?

>>610047

Yes, democracy is not christian. I don't think you need to obey it on every details.