Matthew Yglesias: Rip, Mix, Burn . . . In Hell!

« Moving Day | Main | Computers and Culture »

Rip, Mix, Burn . . . In Hell!

Via young Ezra Klein a quite interesting Journal article noting that the Christian kids nowadays aren't really very Christian. This particular choice of examples, however, strikes me as somewhat questionable:

Indeed, the consequences of this theological implosion now pervade the thoughts and actions of believing teenagers, following the moral breakdown of the broader American culture. Here's one practical example: Only 10% of Christian teens believe that music piracy is morally wrong, according to a recent Barna survey, not all that different from the 6% of their non-Christian peers who feel the same way.

I don't really think Christ expressed a view on intellectual property theft, a crime that didn't, you know, exist during His life. And while I'm sure the RIAA would like you to believe that the Sermon on the Mount contained a denunciation of the Roman authorities for their failure to crack down on those illegal reproductions of Pliny, it just ain't in the Bible.

July 10, 2004 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83420e7b053ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rip, Mix, Burn . . . In Hell!:

» loaves, fishes and songs from coffee grounds
Via Matt Yglesias a link to an Opinion Journal column that cites teenagers acceptance of "music piracy" as evidence of the "moral breakdown of American culture" and a "theological implosion that now pervade[s] the thoughts and actions of believing teen... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 11, 2004 12:54:28 PM

» http://www.jal.org/blog/archive/2004/07/.html from Descriptive Epistemology
Matthew Yglesias notes some theological oddities in a recent article on the morals of Christian young kids. I don't really think Christ expressed a view on intellectual property theft, a crime that didn't, you know, exist during His life. And... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 11, 2004 4:58:18 PM

» Jesus Christ, Filesharer from Descriptive Epistemology
Matthew Yglesias notes some theological oddities in a recent article on the morals of Christian young kids. I don't really think Christ expressed a view on intellectual property theft, a crime that didn't, you know, exist during His life. And... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 11, 2004 5:00:21 PM

Comments

Wondering if Deuteronomy has anything on counterfeit coins, or hiding a chicken inside an old lambskin on sacrificial days or something. Gotta check Monty Python, too. Course doesn't matter, cause Jesus said all the old laws are bunk, and each new generation gets to break them even better! Hallelejuh!

Speaking of generations, this decadent fallen ex-hippie, needing to see the Light, is wondering if any Nordic nubile Christian coeds would sacrifice....never mind. Looks like a personals ad.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jul 10, 2004 7:18:47 PM

I am the Lord thy God, that led you out of slavery.

God, omnipotence, and all related slogans and insignia are TM and copyright of Yahweh. All rights reserved. Any accounts and descriptions of My glory may not be disseminated without My express written consent.

Posted by: digamma | Jul 10, 2004 7:54:02 PM

Heh. Well, there's some stuff in there about obeying the law generally. But it still probably isn't the clearest example they could have used, especially given the fact that Christianity isn't primarily about ethics, it's about soteriology.

Anyway, I doubt that these statistics would have been all that different twenty or thirty years ago. Seems to me that the majority of "Christians" in this country have always just been purely cultural Christians or people who advocate Christian morals, without really believing in a lot of the central theological tenets. Harry Truman told Billy Graham in 1950 that he thought he was a good Christian because he went to church and tried to follow the Sermon on the Mount. This is really nothing new.

Posted by: JP | Jul 10, 2004 8:27:30 PM

And, really, just how far would that bible have gotten if it had been copyrighted back in 33CE?

Posted by: DukeJ | Jul 10, 2004 8:35:25 PM

It's never been entirely clear to me how much of the Old Testament is considered dogma by Christians. So the ten commandments (advisories?) may be pertinent here, but then again, is it stealing if all you get is a whole lot of digital bits that can't be seen individually?

Life is soooo complicated, especially that 'absolute truth' stuff. If "Ninety-one percent of born-again teenagers surveyed a few years ago proclaimed that there is no such thing as absolute truth", who am I to argue. These kind of majorities could amend the Constitution.

But then, Mr. Buss seems pretty concerned: "But it's even more disconcerting to realize that we're relying on this generation for the future defense of Judeo-Christian civilization against the highly motivated forces of militant Islam."

I still remember the words to 'Onward, Christian Soldiers', so maybe I'm on the "right" track and didn't realize non-believers had to enlist.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Jul 10, 2004 8:55:02 PM

Actually, we have a sense of WWJD. Jesus encouraged circulating bootlegs of the Sermon on the Mount. Mark and Luke sampled extensively from Matthew.

Posted by: old guy | Jul 10, 2004 9:32:10 PM

And, if I remember correctly, Jesus himself did quote earlier scriptures without properly citing them - saying "Is is not written that ______" and the like. I suppose the apostles might have neglected to include his full, MLA-format citation when they wrote everything down, of course - but I would guess otherwise.

Posted by: Hot Abercrombie Chick | Jul 10, 2004 10:24:46 PM

The problem is that the RIAA, on purpose, have basically diluted the common definition of piracy to the point where most people just don't really think it's morally wrong, because generally speaking it starts to entail behaviour that most people just don't find to be unethical.

The types of P2P users:

#1. The top-40 downloader. The person who gets only the hot singles, just to hear them instead of listening to the radio. Considering that they're being beamed out, and people just tape them off the radio, a practice long accepted as morally acceptable..

#2. The search buff. The person who searches through P2P for new music, whatever. Downloads a whole bunch of stuff, keeps what they like then discards the rest. They then often buy the CDs of the artists they discover that they really like.

#3. The archivist. Will find a few bands they like, and go searching for EVERYTHING they've ever made. B-sides, covers, live acts. Everything. Will download GB of data without even thinking. Chances are they already own everything of their act, more than likely a lot of it in duplicate or triplicate. This is the group that I'm in, btw.

#4. The replacer. Looking for those old songs, the songs on that old 5-track, etc.

In no real case is it a clear moral transgression. IT's not stealing. But the RIAA frames it as such, mainly because they're scared of the alternative marketing sources making the big labels services frankly, redundant.

If they wanted to get serious about "stealing", they'd visit their local 2nd hand shop, and see people cashing out real money for what might as well be pirated CDs. All perfectly legal. Oops.

Posted by: Karmakin | Jul 11, 2004 1:39:02 AM

Klein's article is very sketchy. Most of the article grapples with the percentage of young Christians that believe in the existence of "absolute truth." (interestingly, though, a large number don't belief in a literal existence of Satan)

He then spends only a brief section digressing from actual Christian beliefs about ethical practices when he talks about music piracy. Of all the things in the world, is this the only thing he could come up with? MattY is right... intellectual property law isn't exactly a big part of Christian teaching. Sure, one could argue that since it is illegal, it is morally wrong from a Christian perspective, there isn't much that a Christian upbringing provides a young child that would make them less willing to accept music piracy than others.

More interesting would be actual issues that are inculated within the church to young Christians-- eg, attitudes toward sex, money, charity, etc.

Posted by: Constantine | Jul 11, 2004 1:55:32 AM

MattY is right... intellectual property law isn't exactly a big part of Christian teaching.

Maybe not, but last time I checked stealing was considered wrong in Christianity a la the 10 commandments.

Sure, one could argue that since it is illegal, it is morally wrong from a Christian perspective, there isn't much that a Christian upbringing provides a young child that would make them less willing to accept music piracy than others.

That depends on whether or not a Christian upbringing provides a young child with the teaching that stealing is wrong.

More interesting would be actual issues that are inculated within the church to young Christians-- eg, attitudes toward sex, money, charity, etc.

So it is not inculated within the church to young Christians that stealing is wrong?

Posted by: Dan the Man | Jul 11, 2004 2:22:14 AM

Dan,
Even granting that stealing is wrong, it is not obvious that intellectual property law violation is, in fact, stealing. Surely government doesn't have the right to decide what is or isn't considered stealing in the context of religious teaching, and surely at the time the commandement about stealing was given there was no intellectual property law, so it couldn't have been the intent, so it's not obvious that music piracy is stealing as far as the Bible is concerned.

If, on the other hand, you'd like to defend the concept of intellectual property stealing as doing whatever's unwanted by the author of the content, you might end up thinking that parody, or "fisking" or whatnor are also sometimes stealing.

Posted by: mg | Jul 11, 2004 2:52:01 AM

Even granting that stealing is wrong, it is not obvious that intellectual property law violation is, in fact, stealing.

Of course it is. Intellectual property laws assert the right of individuals to own intellectual properties and what rights they have of those properties. In the particular case of music downloading, the music downloading was done without the permission of the owner. As defined by the dictionary stealing is To take (the property of another) without right or permission. Therefore what was done is stealing.

Surely government doesn't have the right to decide what is or isn't considered stealing in the context of religious teaching

You're being awfully silly. How one comes about owning a particular property and what rights he has to the property is literally described by thousands of laws. If somebody "takes (the property of another) without right or permission" under the law, that is stealing.

And surely at the time the commandement about stealing was given there was no intellectual property law, so it couldn't have been the intent, so it's not obvious that music piracy is stealing as far as the Bible is concerned.

And surely at the time the commandment about stealing was given, there were no computers either. So, what, it's not obvious that stealing a computer is stealing as far as the Bible is concerned?

If, on the other hand, you'd like to defend the concept of intellectual property stealing as doing whatever's unwanted by the author of the content

Uh, no. I'm making no such defense.

you might end up thinking that parody, or "fisking" or whatnor are also sometimes stealing.

The law allows such "fair use". In the general case of music downloading we are not talking about "fair use." We are talking about people who download it because they want something for free and not have to spend money on it.

Posted by: Dan the Man | Jul 11, 2004 3:33:31 AM

Pliny the Elder was just a kid when Jesus was filling the arenas. Plus there would have been OS conflicts between Latin and Aramaic.

Posted by: Wren | Jul 11, 2004 7:47:18 AM

As defined by the dictionary stealing is To take (the property of another) without right or permission. Therefore what was done is stealing.

You are missing a key point: The definition of the word "stealing" strongly implies that the person being stolen from has been deprived of something. Here, that is not the case. The copyright holders still have the exclusive right to sell their music; nobody has taken that away from them. And before you say that file-sharing hurts record sales, be aware that the opposite seems to be true. At worst, the Harvard/UNC study says, it takes about 5000 downloads to reduce the sales of an album by 1 copy. At that rate, the record industry could make back its profits, and then some, simply by monitoring P2P stats and using them as a free, up-to-the-minute focus group tuned into what people want to listen to (there's a company called BigChampagne which is actually doing this).

So, what, it's not obvious that stealing a computer is stealing as far as the Bible is concerned?

Here you're being disingenuous in the extreme. It is not at all clear that file-sharing is theft, since the person being "robbed" isn't actually losing anything, or isn't clearly losing something.

We are talking about people who download it because they want something for free and not have to spend money on it.

So if I find a MP3s of a record that's been out-of-print for over 30 years, and the only copies in the world that are being offered for sale are at second-hand shops and are all priced upwards of $300, it's somehow wrong for me to download it? Think for just one moment: Nobody loses if I get the song for free. I'll never be able to afford that ultra-rare album, hence I would never buy it, so who loses?

Posted by: Andrew | Jul 11, 2004 8:06:05 AM

I'm not an expert on American law, but in England and Wales file sharing literally isn't theft. The definition of theft includes "permanent intention to deprive", which obviously isn't the case in terms of IP infringement.

And since IP is an entirely artificial construct (in Jesus' time, writers would derive their income through a patron, while booksellers would (legally) make copies of everybody's work, sell them and keep the money), Dan's perspective is utter nonsense.

Posted by: john b | Jul 11, 2004 8:21:32 AM

You are missing a key point: The definition of the word "stealing" strongly implies that the person being stolen from has been deprived of something.

No it doesn't. Re-read the definition.

Here you're being disingenuous in the extreme. It is not at all clear that file-sharing is theft, since the person being "robbed" isn't actually losing anything, or isn't clearly losing something.

Fortunately, the definition points out how wrong you are.

I never said stealing was wrong. Go out and rob a bank for all I care.

Posted by: Dan the Man | Jul 11, 2004 9:32:19 AM

I'm not an expert on American law, but in England and Wales file sharing literally isn't theft.

And according to the American Heritage Dictionary it is theft.

And since much of property law is an "artificial construct", you are a blithering moron.

Posted by: Dan the Man | Jul 11, 2004 9:33:07 AM

IMHO, the gov't does have the right to determine what is and isn't stealing-- and that spills over into the religious teachings on the issue of theft. In the abstract, I agree with Dan, but the fact is that in public perception, file sharing is not perceived as stealing for the reasons outlined above by other posters.

That few users consider file sharing stealing is the issue. Heck, most high school students are probably not well versed in the nuances of intellectual property law. Now, unless churches are going to spend a chunk of their time inculating kids with the notion that "Thou shalt not steal" == "Don't download copyrighted mp3s," one isn't going see much of a difference in Christian vs. secular attitudes on file sharing amount youth. Which is why Klein's article is extraordinarily disingenuous.

Posted by: Constantine | Jul 11, 2004 9:35:36 AM

Dan the Man -- citing dictionaries as legal authorities puts you in the lower depths of the commentator world. Dictionaries seldom resolve any substantive question whatever. Exceptions would be arguments about scrabble, and cases where an individual grossly misused a word.

On controversial questions of usage, dictionaries often disagree.

"Intellectual property laws" have been invented by Disney and Microsoft during the last 20 years for their own convenience. During the prehistoric age of print, you could but a book and sell it afterwards. But not software, and Garth Brooks wanted to make it illegal to sell second-hand CD's. You could also photocopy a library book and use the copy; no one knows the actual fair use law, which isn't enforced for print except againt universities or booksellers. To me the simpleminded conclusion "Filesharing is theft" is by no means evident.

Posted by: Zizka | Jul 11, 2004 10:00:20 AM

I just did a little google search, and it's pretty obvious that the US government does consider copyright violations to be stealing. In the United States Code, the main copyright laws are in section 2318, 2319 and thereabouts.

But those sections are under Chapter 113 Stolen Property laws.

The US Department of Justice website also classifies copyright violations under Stolen Property.

Posted by: Dan the Man | Jul 11, 2004 10:04:50 AM

The filesharing thing is a very small part of the article. It's a bit silly, but I wouldn't make much of it. I was far more bothered by this line:

"But it's even more disconcerting to realize that we're relying on this generation for the future defense of Judeo-Christian civilization against the highly motivated forces of militant Islam."

That's pretty frightening. The author apparently sees our conflict with militant Islam as nothing more than a religious war between Judeo-Christianity and Islam. We should fight barbaric medieval Islam with enlightened secularism, not barbaric medieval Christianity.

Posted by: Xavier | Jul 11, 2004 10:05:35 AM

Dan _is_ the Man. Now _that's_ how trolling is done.

Posted by: Walt Pohl | Jul 11, 2004 10:57:41 AM

I sez: Surely government doesn't have the right to decide what is or isn't considered stealing in the context of religious teaching

Dan sez:You're being awfully silly. How one comes about owning a particular property and what rights he has to the property is literally described by thousands of laws. If somebody "takes (the property of another) without right or permission" under the law, that is stealing.(emphasis mine)

Okay, here's a hypothetical for ya:
Suppose intellectual property laws are such that in country A they're limited to 10 years and in country B they're limited to 20 years.
It is therefore conceivable, according to you, that the exact same action, with the exact same effect to both the owner of the intellectual property and to a person using the property, will be a violation of the no-stealing commandment in "B" but not in "A". Right?
But it doesn't make any sense, or at least not to me, because commandements should have the same meaning everywhere.

For instance, suppose the standard under which use of lethal force in self-defense is also different in countries A and B. Surely the no-murder commandement means the exact same thing in both?

Posted by: mg | Jul 11, 2004 1:28:13 PM

One more thing...
And surely at the time the commandment about stealing was given, there were no computers either. So, what, it's not obvious that stealing a computer is stealing as far as the Bible is concerned?

It is. If a computer had been taken away from its owner 3000 years ago(suppose it were transported back in time), it would be considered stealing.

If someone copied a manuscript 3000 without the author's or the author's heirs' permission, that would not be considered stealing then.

Do you disagree?

Posted by: mg | Jul 11, 2004 1:41:27 PM

It's worth noting that in Christian circles it is often advocated by bands and various leaders that individuals copy CDs and distribute them to their non-Christian friends. After all, if you really think that music might keep someone from going to hell if they hear it, that certainly dominates intellectual property laws. If one takes this perspective and combine it with "Go unto the world, etc." you come closer to saying that copying CDs, sharing MP3s, etc. is Biblical.

Posted by: Michael | Jul 11, 2004 4:03:59 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.