Argh! Is this stealing? Piracy, Ethics, etc.

[pluralone]

Let's say I had planned to buy the new Harry Potter book. I fully intended for JK Rowling (and her publisher, the book store, and all the middlemen) to earn a profit from my purchase, and I was ok with that. Let's say JK Rowling's net profit from that single book was $2. (I have no idea how much she gets, but this is just for illustration purposes.)

But then you offered to loan me your copy. Now I don't need to buy the book. (Well I could if I wanted to display it on my bookshelf, but let's say I just wanted to know what happened to Lord Voldemort and didn't really care about owning the book.)

Did the action of you loaning the book to me rob JKR of $2? as well as $$ that would have gone to her publisher, Barnes&Noble, etc.?

Indeed it did!

How is this any different in the final result from you copying the latest Metallica cd for me, which I had planned to purchase but now no longer need to?

The printed materials (like books) versus music CDs dichotomy is similar to that of apples and oranges, isn't it? There is some comparison to be made, but the contrasts also must be considered.

I spoke with a librarian today: The loan or gift of printed materials from one individual to another is an anticipated possibility for those who are in the publishing business, and there are no copyright laws against it. Otherwise, used book and music stores would have much smaller selections on their shelves, being limited to out-of-print and other older materials. It is not legal to make copies of any copyrighted materials, including magazines and sheet music, beyond the exemptions stated as Fair Use, which I think is geared toward educators. There are similarities in the copyright laws for CDs; one may loan or give one's CD to a another person, but it's not legal to make copies for distribution (gift, loan or sales) purposes. I'm not clear as to whether it's legal to copy a CD as a backup for one that's already been purchased, to be kept as part of one's personal collection. It is legal to upload music from one's personal CD collection onto one's personal computer, but it's not legal to share those files with others.

Digital music (and other materials) available for sale online cannot legally be copied and distributed or downloaded by anyone without the permission of the artist.

Loaning or giving one's personal CD to a friend is not, legally speaking, the same thing as making a copy and giving that away, and so yes, there are subtleties; copyright laws differ between those for printed materials and those that cover digital materials.

Regarding libraries: Acquisition and loan functions of libraries are exceptions to the copyright laws. Still, if I go to the library, it's not legal for me to copy any materials there (again, beyond the scope of Fair Use); only to borrow them.

As for feeling deprived when one cannot afford to legally purchase these materials... I can't afford really nice steak, so does that justify my heading to the forest and poaching a deer? Or do I work with what I have and what I am able to obtain legally? Really nice steak would be ... really nice ... but it's not a necessity, and I personally don't see any justification for breaking the rules on that. (Or is this too 'apples and oranges'? hee)
plur

[Ali Quadir]

Did the action of you loaning the book to me rob JKR of $2? as well as $$ that would have gone to her publisher, Barnes&Noble, etc.?

On the other hand. If I told you that the book wasn't much good, and you decided against buying it. Did I rob JKR of her income?

The fact that my behavior has an effect on the lady's bottom line might not be relevant. It certainly is not the case in law. It's only relevant in assessing damages.

JKR would like you to believe that any dollar not landing in her purse is a stolen dollar. So would her publishers and they will go as far as they can because ultimately that puts more money in their pockets.

[Richard]

If someone is going to pirate music, they will find someway to justify their actions to themselves and their friends. Whether it’s a judgment of the system or the lives and business decisions of the artists. Somehow it will be…okay to do this because…it’s the system that wrong, not the act.

Sadly, this kind of thinking is the root of so much that is wrong with the world these days. Where one injustice validates another injustice which validates another interpretation of the previous injustices…?? Where does it stop? Or perhaps the question should be…where does it begin? It begins with the individual making the ethical choice.


Richard

[Monica]

Argh!

:-/

[Ali Quadir]

Argh indeed!

With all due respect Richard. Please explain who else I am to listen to apart from the law, my God and my heart? Who else dictates what is right and what is wrong for me to do? Who exactly decides if making any copy is authorized?


In my opinion if a system is wrong it is wrong for me to support it. If I support a system that terrorizes people by treating it as just... *I* am terrorizing people.

“Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.”

[Monica]

If someone is going to pirate music, they will find someway to justify their actions to themselves and their friends. Whether it’s a judgment of the system or the lives and business decisions of the artists. Somehow it will be…okay to do this because…it’s the system that wrong, not the act.

This presupposes that the system is perfectly just and the action definitely wrong. Those presuppositions are what we are questioning here.

Are you saying that we should just blindly trust that all existing laws are just, and never question them? Is all questioning/re-evaluation/assessment automatically considered justification, or do you think there is room to question?

Sadly, this kind of thinking is the root of so much that is wrong with the world these days. Where one injustice validates another injustice which validates another interpretation of the previous injustices…?? Where does it stop? Or perhaps the question should be…where does it begin? It begins with the individual making the ethical choice.

That's what we're trying to do here. We're trying to figure out what the ethical choice is in this case.

---

On the other hand. If I told you that the book wasn't much good, and you decided against buying it. Did I rob JKR of her income?

That's a very good question and further strengthens my point that it's just not so simple. See how this can get really crazy? We all affect one another.

The fact that my behavior has an effect on the lady's bottom line might not be relevant. It certainly is not the case in law. It's only relevant in assessing damages.

While several people have quoted the law, my interest in this discussion is with ethics in alignment with the Law of One, which may or may not be in alignment with existing laws. Laws change with society's whims. We already know what the laws state on these issues. I am more interested in exploring the ethics that go beyond man-made laws...and how our choices affect our polarity.

JKR would like you to believe that any dollar not landing in her purse is a stolen dollar. So would her publishers and they will go as far as they can because ultimately that puts more money in their pockets.

Well, respectfully, we really don't know what JKR thinks. I was only using her books as a convenient example.

---

In my opinion if a system is wrong it is wrong for me to support it. If I support a system that terrorizes people by treating it as just... *I* am terrorizing people.

Exactly! I think the laws regarding copyrights have accomplished much, but have not kept up with technology. I don't know what the solution is, but I just don't think it's as simple as it used to be.

My understanding is that the primary purpose of the original copyright laws was to prohibit someone stealing another's intellectual property and making a profit on someone else's work. They don't prohibit freely sharing that property, as is evidenced by society's acceptance of loaning books on a small scale to friends, or on a large scale via libraries. Hence, I contend that the only difference between the loaning of books and the sharing of digital music is scope. Provided the person offering the music is not getting a profit, but is just sharing it freely, I see that more in the same category of loaning books, but just on a grander scale.

I'm NOT saying it's ok. I'm saying it is a new phenomenon that the copyright laws did not take into consideration. I'm saying the whole system needs to be re-evaluated as to exactly what it is they're trying to accomplish. In meantime, suing teenagers or little old ladies for downloading a cd is disproportionate.

[Lavazza]

Sorry all following for this extensive post...

The item is clearly not being stolen, but copyright law is clearly being violated. ... What is arguably being stolen is potential profits. So let's explore that...

I feel this way of thinking is a bit of a slippery slope, because you could apply the same thinking to a music CD and come to the same conclusion. I.e. if I shoplift a Metallica CD from bestbuy... you get the idea. However for the sake of our discussion lets explore it further indeed.

I'm not saying that at all. I don't care for labels because they can be misinterpreted. I'd rather explore the essence of what's happening than stick a convenient label on it. Technically, the music itself is not being stolen (see previous post) but potential profits are being stolen. However, even that is not so simple.

I have to draw the line at this point, because if we cannot say in any definitive way that the person B in my example did or did not steal something, what's the point of examining anything more abstractly? We could debate the topic endlessly in abstract ways, but why?

Furthermore, shouldn't the problem that your methodology cannot find a conclusive answer to my example be proof enough that either it is wrong, or needs more work to produce one?

Let's say I had planned to buy the new Harry Potter book. I fully intended for JK Rowling (and her publisher, the book store, and all the middlemen) to earn a profit from my purchase, and I was ok with that. Let's say JK Rowling's net profit from that single book was $2. (I have no idea how much she gets, but this is just for illustration purposes.) But then you offered to loan me your copy. Now I don't need to buy the book. (Well I could if I wanted to display it on my bookshelf, but let's say I just wanted to know what happened to Lord Voldemort and didn't really care about owning the book.) Did the action of you loaning the book to me rob JKR of $2? as well as $$ that would have gone to her publisher, Barnes&Noble, etc.? Indeed it did!

Correct, effectively monies were denied to JKR & company from that act. However that is not stealing- it is a fair use action on my part to make the loan as the rightful owner of the purchased books (not owning the content therein, of course). Essentially, once again, permission for this action is given.

How is this any different in the final result from you copying the latest Metallica cd for me, which I had planned to purchase but now no longer need to?

The difference is permission was not given!

In terms of what I have in my possession, in the case of the cd, I have the music to enjoy over and over again, whereas in the case of the book, I only read it once. True enough. BUT, in terms of profits being denied the artist, they are exactly the same!

So do you feel that one validates the other? Is the profit being denied in both cases what makes them equal? I do not agree with this.

Now let's look at another scenario. Let's say my son shares...

(cut to conserve forum pixels)

...and many obscure bands who might never get signed to a major label are getting exposure in this illicit underworld.

I think the try before you buy paradigm and referral system is absolutely terrific and I hope it becomes the standard for the music industry. But again, unless the band / record company / etc. promoted the record in that way (making available for download) themselves, it is not what was intended and therefore permission was not given.

Do we do that with every band we happen to learn about from someone who has downloaded their music? No. Some artists' works are indeed being enjoyed by us with no compensation. But since we never knew about them before anyway, who is being harmed?

Perhaps you are right, and no one is being harmed. But you cannot consequently say that downloading those artists' albums from the internet is not stealing. It may be justified stealing, but it is still stealing, which is my main theme here.

In a perfect world, I would gladly reciprocate for every bit of pleasure I ever experience. But I'm just not really set up to send a check to every single artist whose song I happen to hear at a friend's house or on a youtube video. (What about youtube videos, By the way? You can listen to the entire album that way...quality isn't as good of course, so I'm not happy with that since I'm picky about sound quality, but some people aren't so picky and might just listen to stuff on youtube...which isn't paying any royalties to the artist like radio & cable tv do.)

I do not feel that hearing music at a friends house is stealing if you do not pay the artist for it. That falls under fair use...

Youtube, indeed very interesting! I remember reading a while back that Vicom (I think) made Google remove all of their music video content. Yet many other record companies have not done this, perhaps because they feel advertising is more valuable to them. Sort of like the radio, I guess? I do not know the ins and outs of it though.

I do try to support the artists I like the best whenever possible. And if a friend is depressed, I might put together a sampler cd of music to help her feel better. Is that a violation of copyright laws? You betcha

Sampler CDs and mix tapes must be a tricky area for record labels. I do not know where they draw the line on this, but my feeling is that it falls under fair use. I only suppose this because I've never heard of record labels getting upset and filing law suits over them, and they've been around since cassette tapes or earlier. I will assume then for our discussion that permission is given, and thusly it is not stealing. If you apply the 'permission' standard to any junction point or question in this area you can usually find what I feel is the correct answer.

I'm sorry if I seem evasive. I just don't think this issue can be reduced to a simple yes or no regarding the question of whether it's stealing.

I must disagree. I think that if one can not find a yes or no answer to this type of question, and especially in the overly simplified example that I presented in post #62, then we're in for a whole lot more trouble when we encounter anything remotely more complicated or morally challenging.

If I sell you a sandwich but tell you that under no circumstances you're allowed to share it. Would you accept that as lawful behavior on my part? Of course not. Yet the law in this regard is very shallow it is a handful of "adjustments to law" that actually undermine and make irrelevant laws that have stood for centuries.

I may sound the fool for saying so, but I would indeed not share the sandwich. Why? Because that was the stated requirement for buying it. It would be easy for me to go ahead and share the sandwich anyway, the chef would never know... but that would undermine my own ideals of honestly towards others.

You'll have to forgive my picking and choosing which parts of your post I respond to, but I feel that in many instances you are presenting your views from either what the laws actually say about the matter, or are presenting justifications for music piracy in light of corporate corruption.

For the prior I am not so much interested in what the law actually says so much as the more core issue of what our morality says. Many have said, for example, that if you examine the US constitution closely and really boil out all the laws you will see that income taxes are not a requirement for US citizens. Yet I pay my taxes regardless because on a more core and fundamental level I feel it is what is "right" to do. (also not interested in jail time, of course ) So what I mean to say by this is that even if you boil down all the Copyright laws and find that you are the one who is correct, I will just change the focus again and ask you to evaluate my example in post #62. What are your thoughts on that scenario by the way?

For the former, I am all about justification and think it has a real value. As I've mentioned before it could well be that music piracy is a totally justified thing to do. It may be bringing about the change the music industry needs, liberating the repressed musicians, etc. etc. However my fundamental argument is that it is still stealing.

Another example of justification may be in the case of speeding on the road. Here in Los Angeles people drive at least 10 mph over the limit on the freeways at all times. As a result I have justified that I may do the same thing, because to drive at a slower rate then the rest of traffic would actually increase the danger to myself and others on the road. I feel justified in my act- but I wouldn't dream of arguing that I am not breaking the laws of traffic in doing so. Sort of complies with the old saying, do two wrongs make a right?

If you support music piracy, then wear it like a badge of honor. Stand behind it unflinchingly. "I am steaing music, because..." and what follows may make all the moral difference. I am reminded of a website, The Pirate Bay. I do not agree with the premise of the website, but I have a profound respect for those who operate it for their fearlessness to stand behind what they believe in. Giving their website that very name is in itself amazing. Now I do not know if they themselves will admit that what they are facilitating is stealing, but surely it is.

On those lines, would you please provide a link to the girl scouts lawsuit? The RIAA never ceases to amaze me...

---

(I'm sure a similar site exists for Australia, Lavazza)

I need to update my profile it seems. Just got back to the USA at the end of May after spending a year working in Sydney. It was beautiful down there, but we're glad to be back home. Mexican food is way better in LA.

[Monica]

I'm not saying that at all. I don't care for labels because they can be misinterpreted. I'd rather explore the essence of what's happening than stick a convenient label on it. Technically, the music itself is not being stolen (see previous post) but potential profits are being stolen. However, even that is not so simple.

I have to draw the line at this point, because if we cannot say in any definitive way that the person B in my example did or did not steal something, what's the point of examining anything more abstractly? We could debate the topic endlessly in abstract ways, but why?

Um, because it's thought-provoking and fun?  

Furthermore, shouldn't the problem that your methodology cannot find a conclusive answer to my example be proof enough that either it is wrong, or needs more work to produce one?

Without a conclusive answer? In that case, then I guess I'm in good company, since Q'uo often gives inconclusive answers to difficult questions. Recently, there was one on drug use. (We have a new thread for it, so please, let's discuss that over there!) ...which was very inconclusive indeed. But their response allowed for much introspection and though-provoking discussion of abstract concepts!

Perhaps we have different goals in this discussion. You seem to imply that you are seeking a conclusive answer. I'm not; nor do I think a conclusive answer is even possible. I am seeking to explore different angles to this issue, so that we may all have much to contemplate in making our own personal choices in these ethical dilemmas.

The difference is permission was not given!

I disagree. I don't think every person who has ever authored a book or recorded a song has consciously explored all the nuances of getting their work published/recorded, contemplated all the possible scenarios, and explicitly given permission.

I think the reason we're not connecting on this point is that you seem to be focused on the legality, and I am looking at the individual artist, who may or may not even be fully aware of all the legal ramifications.

Again, I am attempting to view this thru the lens of the Law of One, not just US copyright laws.

In terms of what I have in my possession, in the case of the cd, I have the music to enjoy over and over again, whereas in the case of the book, I only read it once. True enough. BUT, in terms of profits being denied the artist, they are exactly the same!

So do you feel that one validates the other? Is the profit being denied in both cases what makes them equal? I do not agree with this.

No, I don't think one validates the other. I'm not attempting to validate anything. (Again, I've never even downloaded a single song!) I am simply offering a comparison, for the purpose of stretching our thinking and considering the essence of what's realy happening in such a scenario.

Perhaps you are right, and no one is being harmed. But you cannot consequently say that downloading those artists' albums from the internet is not stealing. It may be justified stealing, but it is still stealing, which is my main theme here.

I respect your opinion. I never said it was or wasn't stealing. I said it is not any less or more stealing than other actions which may or may not be legally acceptable.

I do not feel that hearing music at a friends house is stealing if you do not pay the artist for it. That falls under fair use...

You mean the legal term 'fair use?'

I'm sorry if I seem evasive. I just don't think this issue can be reduced to a simple yes or no regarding the question of whether it's stealing.

I must disagree. I think that if one can not find a yes or no answer to this type of question, and especially in the overly simplified example that I presented in post #62, then we're in for a whole lot more trouble when we encounter anything remotely more complicated or morally challenging.

And again I respectfully disagree. We are heading for an SMC, in which we will all be sharing a great deal of our thoughts/feelings etc. I think this technological dilemma is indicative of the passing of the seasons...just as we've outgrown blindly believing what our religious leaders tell us, so too are we outgrowing simple, 'conclusive' black-and-white rules about issues too complex to neatly fit.

---

For the former, I am all about justification and think it has a real value. As I've mentioned before it could well be that music piracy is a totally justified thing to do. It may be bringing about the change the music industry needs, liberating the repressed musicians, etc. etc. However my fundamental argument is that it is still stealing.

...If you support music piracy, then wear it like a badge of honor. Stand behind it unflinchingly.  "I am steaing music, because..." and what follows may make all the moral difference. I am reminded of a website, The Pirate Bay. I do not agree with the premise of the website, but I have a profound respect for those who operate it for their fearlessness to stand behind what they believe in. Giving their website that very name is in itself amazing. Now I do not know if they themselves will admit that what they are facilitating is stealing, but surely it is.

I do understand your point and agree with it essentially. I feel the same way about controversial issues like eating meat and abortion! (mentioned in passing only! please let's not get into those on this thread, ok?)

But the problem is that we don't all agree with your definition, just as not everyone agrees that killing animals for meat is murder. It's easy for a vegetarian to say "But it's still murder!" but not everyone is going to agree with that statement. So I contend that it cannot be reduced to such a simplification for everyone. For you, sure, and that's ok. I hope you can understand that not everyone thinks of it the same way you do.

peace

Edit: Corrected a glaring typo

[Richard]

Lavazza wrote:

"....We are heading for an Social Memory Complex, in which we will all be sharing a great deal of our thoughts/feelings etc....."

Well said, Lavazza...and therein lies the rub. Permission in that state is either given or not given and all know it. Or perhaps the entire concept of copyright of ownership, permission, property and use of will be outdated concepts. But we are not there yet. And the world we live in is framed by laws that define our culture and societies. I don’t think a society can function based upon individual interpretation of a given code of law. That way lies anarchy….or worse.



Ali wrote:

"...With all due respect Richard. Please explain who else I am to listen to apart from the law, my God and my heart? Who else dictates what is right and what is wrong for me to do? Who exactly decides if making any copy is authorized?

In my opinion if a system is wrong it is wrong for me to support it. If I support a system that terrorizes people by treating it as just... *I* am terrorizing people....."


Ali,

My friend, only you can dictate what is wrong or right for you. But there are usually consequences for any decision. I happen to think that the system of income tax and levying of such by the Fed is unjust. But the consequences of refusing to participate in a system I personally abhor far outweigh the philosophical statement I would make by not participating. Such is life on earth. We all make choices…and live with the consequences ( or catalyst? ) of those choices if they happen to find us.

But, consider…none of these people would be in the least bit terrorized if they simply paid $0.99 for song. Is that so much to ask? That people show their appreciation to the authors of music we so much enjoy and whose efforts we appreciate.

This entire subject seems to be starting to polarize us. I just want to say right now, in case this starts to get out of hand (as, no doubt, all of us have seen on other message boards)…that I respect everyones viewpoint. I love a good debate. But not at the expense of anyone’s feelings. Please don’t take it personally. I just love the exchange of ideas.

Richard

[Lavazza]

This entire subject seems to be starting to polarize us. I just want to say right now, in case this starts to get out of hand (as, no doubt, all of us have seen on other message boards)…that I respect everyones viewpoint. I love a good debate. But not at the expense of anyone’s feelings. Please don’t take it personally. I just love the exchange of ideas.

And this I second! For as different as we see the subject, I love you all none the less. And I'll let it rest there (for real this time, I think )

Namaste!

[Monica]

This entire subject seems to be starting to polarize us.

I agree! I think discussion and even debate can be healthy, as long as it's respectful. But I too am beginning to feel that we've reached an impasse.

I've expressed my opinions, so I'm going to leave it at that. I hope everyone can be open to considering different points of view, and if they don't resonate, leave them behind with discernment but without judgment.

Peace to everyone!

---

And this I second! For as different as we see the subject, I love you all none the less. And I'll let it rest there (for real this time, I think )

Namaste!

And I third it! Thanks, Lavazza, for sharing your opinions.

[Ali Quadir]

Incidentally Stephen Fry, a British actor musician and comedian decided to climb a soap box and give a speech about this whole copyright business.

He gives a good oversight and adds some good insights from inside the music/television business. He puts in quite a balanced and sensible pragmatic view.

He's a comedian. So you'll be laughing hard a few times. I certainly did.

http://fry.positive-dedicated.net/fry-po...des-04.mp3

[ayadew]

Nine Inch Nails released his latest album for free, but charged for a limited edition that had the extra-everything for his biggest fans - which was quite expensive.
This is an interesting approach.

[BrownEye]

When I was 11 or 12 I would stay up till midnight recording import rock off the radio, Thursday nights 1 hour duration. I found so much cool stuff that nobody had heard of. I'd take my walkman to school and the kids thought Metallica sounded awesome even though they couldn't tell what they were singing. A lot of those old groups are still together today.

Guess I started my pirating at a young age. Obviously I was too young and waaaay too far out of the city to be able to buy an actual cassette copy of the album. Not to mention the only music store in the largest town within 300 miles didn't know about those particular bands back then.

At a certain age I began buying tapes. They didn't last very long. Then as I got older CDs came out and I replaced my tape collection with CDs. Then I slowed down on the buying when I found out that a lot of the songs I never heard before I bought weren't good anyways. The one single song I had heard got me to buy the album and I would kick myself afterwards, trade-in value 1 hour after purchase always left a bad taste.

I didn't get into downloading songs until Metallica did their friendly little lawsuit. I didn't even know much about peer to peer until Metallica put it in the news. What I learned is that bands that are more associated with capitalism and are already mainstream are against pirating. If its an up and coming band that has no recognition they love the idea of peer to peer because it can give them free advertising.

Really, these days most people will buy if they like it. And those that don't buy it are most likely not going to rush to the store if they can't download it. The old argument is stale. Stopping piracy won't increase the amount of money going to the artist. Fighting piracy is generating money for an organization that has nothing to do with the artists. If they really didn't want the piracy issue to come up then the technology for pirating wouldn't have been pushed on the public to begin with. Every now and then i'll catch a cable advert somewhere (i dont want cable in my house) and i'll see some new form of peer sharing device.
Doesn't it seem strange how a Blu-Ray burner can be released so quickly after the Blu-Ray debut? If something new is released they will also release a way to make personal counterfeits.

Think about it heh, if there really is a problem with pirating all they needed to do is release the originals and the players, not the copiers and recorders.

Oh yeah, back in the old days copies of cassettes and VHS were commonly pirated and sold, given to relatives for Christmas, birthdays, yet nobody cared.

[Monica]

Related thread:

Olio > US is set to censor internet

[Monica]

bands that are more associated with capitalism and are already mainstream are against pirating. If its an up and coming band that has no recognition they love the idea of peer to peer because it can give them free advertising.

Not sure how I missed this old post, Pickle!

You've brought up a very good point. There is a huge underground music scene that depends largely on pirating to promote the music. I've seen many bands live whose music never makes it to the mainstream stores. They sell their cds at their concerts and online. They're on independent labels or small labels, not the biggies. Apparently, they might earn less on cd sales, but they get to keep more of the profits, since they aren't beholden to the record companies. And, they are free to create art, instead of being expected to churn out more hits just to satisfy contracts. And it shows in their music! They are able to take risks and actually create works of art that are unique, instead of formulaic.

[Plenum]

- -

where do thoughts, dreams, ideas, inspirations all come from?

the One Infinite Creator.

it is STS to lock up what the Creator has given to you.

- -

getting payment/appreciation/work for your efforts is an unrelated issue to do with our economic structure; one that is STS at heart.

- -

there comes a clash at times.

but the Law of One is available freely online. Carla asks you to pay for her books because, well, she has to pay the publishers and trees to print them.

but the Information is there, given freely. As are all the Q'uo transcripts.

and what we do here, on these forums, is giving freely of our time and ideas.

this is the Creator in action my friends.

[Oldern]

- -

where do thoughts, dreams, ideas, inspirations all come from?

the One Infinite Creator.

it is STS to lock up what the Creator has given to you.

- -

getting payment/appreciation/work for your efforts is an unrelated issue to do with our economic structure; one that is STS at heart.

- -

there comes a clash at times.

but the Law of One is available freely online. Carla asks you to pay for her books because, well, she has to pay the publishers and trees to print them.

but the Information is there, given freely. As are all the Q'uo transcripts.

and what we do here, on these forums, is giving freely of our time and ideas.

this is the Creator in action my friends.

Plenum, let me tell you a tale.
The biggest saints/wanderers/"heroes" in our existence usually came with this message:

Do not do to others what you do not expect to be done to yourself as well.
If we go along with this spiritual guidance, I think that it is only natural that if others decide that they want to protect their own work behind a barrier of entry, they are free to do so - and we, as positive beings, totally respect that. We do not go around parading about our rights to do whatever we want because everything comes from the Creator anyway.

There is a sense of uniqueness to everything that is created here, and that is to be respected, imho.

Of course, this goes both ways, and this is the hard lesson: I should not be telling you to respect others wishes to protect their music, work, etc - because that would be the same as someone demanding others to change their ways of life. But I think this analogy might help someone to realize that there is an overall positive way to think about this.

And that is: support and love those who are not protecting their work and make things available freely - and simply ignore or pass by those who choose to protect it by a barrier of entry. Anything else (demanding free stuff, etc) is just an unnecessary "I want everything" song of our egos, I think. Heck, even purely pirating something and not thinking about it is more positive imho than pirating AND complaining about needing to pirate this instead of getting it for free anyway.

[Monica]

This dubstep violinist made $6 million on YouTube without a record label

[Nicholas]

This dubstep violinist made $6 million on YouTube without a record label

Ahem, that's string based EDM/Classical  

Dubstep evolved from the b side of popular sub culture "2 step" tracks here

This is Dubstep today 



The whole point of sub culture music is to redefine that which already exists, by tweaking it to the point that it can no longer be defined as a pre-existing sound. In other words, as soon as a certain sound becomes popular, it is immediately discarded because it's creative potential has been maximised. Thus a "new" sound is born in the underground music scene.

This creative/innovative process has been referenced by Ra when they describe how sub logoi, using free will, while utilising the old, creates something new 

[Monica]

Ahem, that's string based EDM/Classical  

I just quoted the article. I was wondering what dubstep meant, but didn't get around to looking it up. Not a genre I'm familiar with!

I know what you mean about the sub-genres. My son has made an effort to educate me about all those new sub-genres that didn't exist back in my day.

...