/christianity/ - Christian Theology

Example argument:

>taylor swift (& jew producers) expect to be paid for the record they produced, so they're out if you acquire it without purchase

A gas attendant might have expected to pump my gas for a fee, but he's not entitled to my purchase since I can pump gas myself

It's not the same as physical property but it's still stealing

>>622

Yes, it is. People back then understood guilds and guild secrets. If you stole someone's method of creating blue dye, for example, then you were stealing their intellectual property and causing them to lose income.

>>625

This tbh

>>625

What's the ethical difference between competition with secret formulas involved and competition with no secrets?

If I build almost identical tables at lower cost than my competitor, he'd be at a loss of income but I earned it.

Also what's the ethical difference between sharing a purchased CD with a friend, and that friend sharing the same files with a third person?

What's the difference between sharing it with one person, a hundred people, or however many people ask?

Sorta similar question: What about media when it isn't clear if it falls under fair use/copyright problems? For example:

-Clips/scenes of shows/movies on youtube

-Recording footage of gameplay on youtube

-Fan-made media, such as fanfiction, fan comics, or game sprite comics/animation (If so, does the author of the original work's opinion on such fan media factor in?)

-Any fan discussion of narrative media that uses imagery from said media, whether it be an imageboard post or a video or whatever

These things aren't clearly fair use, but they aren't clearly against copyright. Are they wrong?

>>917

No, because copyright isn't a moral issue. You have no biblical obligation to follow the wishes of copyright holders, it's only that the state will oppress you through force if you don't play by their rules.

>>918

On thee other hand, aren't we obligated because of Romans 13:1-2?

I ask because I'm curious what we do when there is no clear consensus on what the law is and the legalese isn't always clear to the common layperson.

>>922

I take the opinion that Romans 13 doesn't refer to secularism/state authority

Here's an article about it

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/09/paul-green/does-romans-13-oppose-liberty/

Either way, Romans 13 obviously can't excuse evil on the part of the state, it's just a less common argument that intellectual property is unjust.

>>625

What is the difference between this and usury tbh?

Usury creates "profit" without work, while intellectual "property" does the same thing on the virtue of "I've found this first" (Ideas are not made, they are discovered)

You could argue that you put work into creating something, but so does a usurer when he drafts up a binding agreement.

Also, piracy is nowhere stated to be a sin in scripture, nor does it fall into the clearly defined category of stealing. Sharing your own possessions is your right. You can't steal "future profits" either, because they literally don't exist until they materialize.

Sharing is caring, not theft.

>>922

No you are not. Only authorities established by God must be obeyed. Democracies are by definition outside of that. That and if you live in a country where piracy is legal, you're in the green, even if it's a monarchy.

However this leads us to another issue. If it's ok for me, but not for thee, that would imply that God's laws don't equally apply. So either piracy (the word itself is wrong, it should be called vountary sharing of property) is irrelevant in the eyes of the Lord, or he has double standards. Now, what is more in line with the spirit of Christianity? Obey the law or share what you have with those in need? Both of those principles are important, but there is nothing wrong with sharing what you have with those in need.

Combine this with the idea that holding ideas back because "I was there first" is pretty much wrong for the same reason as usury is. Ideas don't belong to you or me, they belong to everyone, like the Bible and God.

It is NICE to honor someone who makes a contribution to the realm of ideas, they do deserve thanks and credit, but that could easily be solved through donations. (And people do donate a lot to worthy goals, don't even try to deny that.)

>>977

Democratic countries are no more inherently godless than monarchies on the basis of their political structure

>>985

Democracies allocate power by the people for the people, which is fake and gay.

The only legitimate right to rule is derived from divinity, meaning that a ruler rules by divine right.

Democracies are categorically outside of that.

>>992

Just not the case

There is not a solitary monarchy in history, save for OT Israel, that had such authority derived from God.

>>994

I take it you are not a catholic?

>>998

Right

>>999

Well, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

>>1003

How does Catholicism mandate your idea of divine right to rule?

>>1005

European kings derived their right to rule from God. The pope even blessed and sanctioned their kingship and kings ruled by the grace of God. If you were a usurper, you had to bow to the pope before you were condsidered a legitimate ruler.

>>1014

And you believe them?

>>1015

Yeah, but I also believe that bad rulers merely usurp that authority by abusing it.

>>1014

You do realize divine right of kings as it is known was a Protestant doctrine affirmed against historic papist beliefs and condemned by the papacy? The medieval idea was that kings owe their crowns to Rome, and share a relationship to him that is akin to what their lords had with them, namely of a dependency. This is why popes claimed the right to dethrone kings at will. In contrast, the reformers asserted that the authority of the state is derived from God Himself, and therefore their throne is secure from papal decree, only being forsaken on the most egregious abuse of authority.

Keep in mind though that the kingly language is more because of the time in which the reformers lived. Their doctrine is more statist than monarchist.