Christians vs. File Swapping

[Ian]

A friend of my parent's sent me this link.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5548781.html

The thing that caught my eye was this:

Backed by a diverse coalition of influential groups, including the Bush administration's top lawyer and the Christian Coalition, the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America on Monday asked the court to overturn previous rulings that have let file-swapping software companies such as Grokster operate with only minimal legal restrictions.

Please, someone tell me why a Christian group is involved in this. Are people downloading illegal copies of the bible? Personally, I'm really sick of the current administration turning things into a religeous matter when they need support for something.

What next? The Pope telling us we're going to hell for downloading movies and music?

[CowboySlim]

Are people downloading illegal copies of the bible?

Nah, it's the T & A that they don't want you to download.

Slim

[LoneWolf]

The biggest problem is, that there are a lot of Christians out there.

And then, there are a lot of people that claim to be Christians. There's quite a difference. I personally believe that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are going to get a huge and rather nasty surprise someday at the end of their lives. There's a lot of groups that take a view, then narrow it down to fine points, then take the extreme view on those narrow points, and then give themselves a label that makes a lot more people look bad, as well as their own cause. I believe in being humane towards animals for example, but I despise PETA. I believe in the right to own guns and hunting, but I'll never join the NRA, and I believe in the Bill of Rights, but I'll never be a card-carrying member of the ACLU. In the same way, I may hold to a percentage of the views of the Christian Coalition, but chances are good that the remainder of their views is total malarkey in my eyes, though I am a Christian. Chances are good that a few people who barely understand technology in the Christian Coalition have had the words "child porn downloading" whispered in their ears over and over again by the RIAA, and it scared them.

I also believe it's definitely high fashion for the news media of today to take even the loosest links between religion of any kind and an issue that may be hot-button already, and attempt to inflate it far beyond what it is. In the article, the RIAA & legal team made plenty of statement. Doesn't look like anyone in the Christian Coalition was quoted one way or the other, but I'd argue (whether the Christian Coalition is a good or bad organization) that it could easily be possible that someone at Ziff-Davis didn't like them very much, and it made a little more kindling for the fire. Makes you miss people like Murrow and Cronkite, or at least it does for me.

I think the administration's "turning things into a religious matter" is to some extent stretched by the media too, and the voices that are the loudest tend to carry the furthest of course.

LoneWolf

[Boba_Fett]

The biggest problem is, that there are a lot of Christians out there.

That just doesn't sound right...

Anyway, I bet that is a typo. I have no idea why the CC would be in the fight against p2p, with the exception of the fact that 99.9999% of p2p users are stealing data they don't own, which is a sin. It doesn't really make sense. I bet someone just dropped that in there to get the liberals and/or athiests riled up.

[LoneWolf]

The biggest problem is, that there are a lot of Christians out there.

That just doesn't sound right...

Anyway, I bet that is a typo. I have no idea why the CC would be in the fight against p2p, with the exception of the fact that 99.9999% of p2p users are stealing data they don't own, which is a sin. It doesn't really make sense. I bet someone just dropped that in there to get the liberals and/or athiests riled up.

That may be, but also remember that according to statistics, P2P is fast becoming the number one method for distributing child pornography. This would quickly bring in the concerned mothers group listed in the article as well as the CC. It's entirely possible that these two groups are looking at the worst uses for filesharing, and not considering any other possibilities because they have a limited understanding of technology, or because they believe the cons of it so outweigh the pros (according to their own points of view) that they would rather ban P2P file sharing than work harder to curb the (admittedly deplorable) exploitation of children through other means.

And then Ziff-Davis comes in, using their resources to give a certain group of people in the tech industry (which includes ZD as well, most likely) who already have a dim view of Christianity more fuel for their fire. Sounds about right, kind of like Fox's "fair and balanced" coverage. It didn't go into much detail about why the CC or concerned mothers' groups were against P2P, it just made sure to list them a few times. Sounds like an attempt to stir that big steaming pot o' crap just a little harder.

[Spazmogen]

Nothing new here.

Wasn't it Falwell that was hanging out in the White House with Ronald Regan back in the mid 80's ?

So, now the Christian Groups are discovering that they too can be a powerful lobby vehicle in Washington. Perhaps they're concerned Pat Boone is getting downloaded too much

Seems like everyone is running a lobby group in Washington except cdr-labs.

EDIT:

Yeah it was Falwell.

[LoneWolf]

Nothing new here.

Wasn't it Falwell that was hanging out in the White House with Ronald Regan back in the mid 80's ?

So, now the Christian Groups are discovering that they too can be a powerful lobby vehicle in Washington. Perhaps they're concerned Pat Boone is getting downloaded too much

Seems like everyone is running a lobby group in Washington except cdr-labs.

Yeah, the big problem with Falwell and Robertson IMO is that I believe that over time, they have become more in love with the sound of their own voices and any influence they may have in the world, than they are in love with the God they claim to worship.

I understand reasoning behind a lobby group (not theirs) that supports certain standards of morality. No matter how people argue that "you can't legislate my morality", we already do. Explains why murder, theft, fraud, rape, physical harm to others, etc. is illegal and punishable by law. We've generally agreed on these and other things as immoral behavior. And of course many of us would agree that we'd love to see a lot more morality in the U.S. political system.

The problem comes in where you have a tool like P2P file sharing, which could arguably be used for both moral and immoral purposes. I don't think it's okay to attempt to ban a technology that "could be used immorally". After all, a drunk driver who kills someone is using their car immorally, but that doesn't mean we should ban automobiles. I think that through their lack of understanding technology and through narrow views, some lobbies forget about the U.S. Constitution in the process.

Heck, I could use that last sentence and apply it to the RIAA as easy as I could the Christian Coalition.