This is Life!: Revolutions Around the Cruciform Axis

Thanks for this. My husband will be so happy! He was a Steve Taylor fan, too.

Clifton-
bad behavior on the part of the record companies not withstanding, posting rips on the Internet of recordings for which they have legal ownership is against the law; those that post and those that fetch the post are at some risk (albeit small) of prosecution. Suppose that some day you are to stand before a Judge and account for every decision, every action you make. I would be interested in a thumbnail outline of the Orthodox foundations of a defense to post these links, to use them, and to promote them. Is it civil disobedience? Is it a justice issue? Just when is it defensible to break civil law?

David

David:

Without excusing myself, I'm not fine-tuned to the niceties of the law, so I have been under the assumption that a) if the record companies manifest no interest in the marketing and distribution of the product, b) the creator of the product himself encourages persons to freely use and distribute the product he created and without which the record companies would have no product about which they could manifest a disinterest, and c) neither the record companies nor the original creator has indicated any willingness to secure their legal rights (such that they exist) over the distribution of the product, d) then one is ethically (even if not legally, and here I am unfamiliar with how the law operates) free to enjoy the music created by the original author/artist at one's own discretion.

Let me hasten to say that this is not a specifically Orthodox justification, nor am I familiar with how Orthodox might have a specific response to this scenario different than the one I've constructed.

One might also ask how one is justified with habitually driving thirty-five miles an hour on streets that are clearly marked as thirty miles an hour, how one is justified in habitually rolling through stop signs, and other breaking of statutory laws, how one is justified in taking a longer break at work than is allowed, or leaving early, coming in late, without adjusting one's time, and other violations of employee/employer relations, and so on down the list of things that one could raise--and whether there is any Christian, let alone Orthodox defense of such behavior.

David, you say "posting rips on the Internet of recordings for which they have legal ownership is against the law" and later you mention "civil law"

Not really. The last significant decisions was the vcr/betamax issue, and we all know how that turned out. The only "law" against this is the law of prudence in that a team of well funded lawyers will make you pay dearly in money and time defending yourself. Until the Supremes decide, the only really parallel case says one can share and trade music (that you legally own) with others as long as you do not make a profit...

At the ever present risk of speaking out of ignorance, music sharing seems to be treated as a copyright issue. The RIAA is suing based on copyright law. Copyrights I know about, because I'm a pointy-headed academic who publishes. When _I_ do the work, and _I_ write the paper, and _I_ edit the copy-proofs clearly done by someone for whom English is not the first, second, or third language, I am still asked to sign a copyright transfer form that gives the publisher all rights, not only to the published result, but to the words used in the published result even if formated differently, not under the bannerhead of the journal. Fair use laws not withstanding, if I want to have Kinkos run off a bunch of copies from the published work, they insist on having permission from the publisher. Even if the publisher has gone out of business or my entreaties for permission fall on deaf ears. What we can and do do in the copyright space is negotiate copyright agreements that allow me the author extensive use of my own material, provided that I do not earn revenue from it. But it has to be negotiated.

Clifton--one of the great things about having a fish symbol on your car (or one of the great Orthodox bumper stickers I've seen:
"Orthodoxy : Telling the Truth since 33 A.D" (suggesting the question, "how about before that?") ) is that you are no longer anonymous when you speed or cut someone off. Your actions are linked as a witness to the symbol. So I try, really and truly, not to speed.

Ah, yes. But fair use is not so easy to pin down. I'm quite certain that I ought not make sixteen copies of an entire article, or a single copy of an entire book, but I'm free to make single copies of just about any article, and I can choose my favorite chapters out of said book. I see no real difference here.

I fear we are heading into "enumeration of angels dancing on the head of a pin" territory, and I've no particular interest in going there. But let the blog owner have the last word on his own blog? Nah....

Imagine that outside your office you put a table with a copying machine, and a copy of a journal article. The sign over it reads "Make a copy if you like. Make as many copies as you like". Fair use? It is closer to what is happening when someone posts links to copyrighted .mp3 files.

(of course in Chicago that copying machine wouldn't stay there long, -grin-)

David:

As far as the last word: I have the delete button control.

As far as copying articles vis a vis downloading mp3's: you clearly have no idea what goes on in academia.

I've wondered why you continue to respond, given that your original comment could be taken--it's hard to read the tone of online written communications--as rude and belligerent, especially your seeming attempt at humor as to what Orthodoxy was doing prior to AD 33. But I've given you the benefit of the doubt, and responded to your comments politely and on good faith.

It's clear you don't accept what Christopher and I have said in defense of actions I've taken. I think the legal ambiguity--and a right ambiguity it is--has been made clear. And if the legalities of such things are as murky as they are, it's little wonder that the ethical matters are similarly grey.

For the record, my conscience is clear, and since I've gone on record publicly to explain my rationale, I've obviously nothing to hide. Others who read these comments will make up their own minds here, and I respect those who disagree with my stance, or just simply find themselves conscience-bound to refrain from accessing the files.

But you clearly seem to think that both your legal and moral accusations surmount our explanations. So be it.

the last word is yours Clifton, your blog after all. It is too easy to miscommunicate by written word, and I fear I've done went and got your dander up on this issue.

David out

Pfft. Illegal does not necessarily equal immoral. Christianity was illegal at one point. (And still is some places).