A moral dilemma?

To download or not too download? That is the question. It is one not only of moral relevance but also one of legal ramifications. Or is it?

When it comes to the controversial hot button issue of downloading/uploading music files, is it in fact illegal? Is it in fact wrong?

From a legal standpoint, depending on your geographical region, it can be either one. For example, just last month, a 30 year old Minnesota (US) woman was ordered to pay $222,000.00 to six different record companies for sharing 24 songs online thru a file sharing site. Also known as P2P (Peer to peer). Obviously, it is against the law in Minnesota but the punishment was rather odd when she apparently had over 1,700 songs on her computer. Why was she then only charged for 24 songs? Either it is illegal across the board or it is not.

Here in Canada the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association) are also all up in arms (naturally) for what they claim are more then 1 billion illegal downloads per year in Canada. But wait just a minute...ILLEGAL?


In 2003, the Copyright Board of Canada RULED that downloading P2P networks (File sharing) was, in fact, PERFECTLY LEGAL for personal use The following year a Canadian Federal court judge (that's the Supreme court baby!) took on a similar stance when questioning whether uploading files is even illegal. In other words, as long as you are only downloading music for your own listening pleasure and not making 500 CD copies that you are then distributing and making money off of, then you are not committing a criminal act. Therefore, the CRIA errs when they suggest that what Canadians are doing is illegal when the reality is quite the opposite. If I download any music, in Canada, I am not breaking any laws, therefore how can it be illegal?

The second, and maybe more important question, is ...is it morally wrong? Some refer to it (P2P) as "stealing". I am honestly not convinced, at least at this point, that it is. Hear me out on this.

Back in the early 1980's "Everybody" borrowed records (remember those big vinyl disc's?) from their friend's, families, and neighbors to record them onto their tape cassettes so they could listen to them on their car stereos. I also remember sitting up for hours listening to my favorite Rock station with a cassette loaded in my boom box ready to hit that bright red record button every time one of my favorite songs came on. Our thinking back then was no different then it is today. Why go out and buy an entire record when you only wanted one or two songs. Someone was bound to have a copy you could "borrow".

It was a Flintstone version of file sharing with only one big difference. Aside from the physical exchange of music, as opposed to the online experience, no one was ever ONCE accused of stealing music. No recording industry ever ONCE filed a law suit against an individual. No law was ever ONCE mentioned or tabled in any legislative assembly in order to try an attempt to prevent people from sharing their record albums for other's to record. It was all understood that it was for personal use as well.

As it stands for me today, and as of this writing, I see no difference in today's online experience then from that of yesteryear.

Until next time...

It's NOT Racism!

Racism (ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-)

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

One of my biggest pet peeves out there today has to be people/groups who cry foul over everything and anything. They go about this by almost intentionally misusing and abusing terminology. There is a tendency to shout out loud about somebody's/group's infraction against them. It is then taken a step further by manipulating media with these "words of accusation" in order that they might gain public sympathy thru media sensationalism.

The reality, quite often, is overshadowed by the "I'm a victim" statement as opposed to actual circumstance. Media swallow up the supposed offence against the "victim" without doing any real investigation to determine if, at all, the offence ever took place.

For example, we often see many people who disagree or who refuse to recognize a gay marriage due to a personal conviction, labelled by their supposed "victims" as homophobe's. Are they really? How do the accuser's know whether or not these "phobes" have gay friends, family, and co-workers whom they feel deeply for. Even love. They simply have a differing view on homosexuality. Does the term "Homophobe", as it is defined, actually apply?

Another word thrown around loosley these days is "Racism". Take the story of Winnipeg's Kim Houle who recently accused leadership at Church of the Rock of discriminating against her.

Her story begins when she recently moved into a Habitat for Humanity home in July and was asked to perform, along with eight of her kids and grandkids, at the organization's volunteer appreciation night which was to take place at the Church that the organization had booked. Her performance was going to be a Native Spiritual dance where she and her kids/grandkids were to dress in their traditional garb. The day the event was to take place, Houle was informed they could not perform because their spiritual dance did not align with the church's policies. (An "oversite" on the part of Habitat who was obligated to inform the church of all performers prior to the event, not the day of)

A policy that the church is entitled to have. However, ask yourself the question, "Would a church be allowed to have a legal and binding policy that outright states that certain races are not allowed"? Although I do not personally attend Church of the Rock I can attest that almost all church's have a policy in place for the sake of protection from discriminatory suit's. Not based on race either. They are often very similiar in content. I believe I would be quite accurate in assuming the policy in this case stated that the church, which is the sanctuary where Christ alone is worshiped, cannot permit "acts of worship" to accomodate other beliefs. It would demonstrate a "Universal" acceptance that all paths lead to Heaven/God and that would be contrary to the core tenets of the Christian faith. To allow such an event would make a contradictory statement that the church embraces all "Faith's" which it does not. It embraces all people. Which brings me to the crux of all this.

Houle stated, "I was very angry, I was really hurt to have to explain to my kids that this prejudice is still going on,". She later went on to say, "the church reminded her that aboriginal people are still not free from racism and prejudice".

I do sincerely sympathise with her hurt but was she racially targeted? The invite to the event still stood. She was never once told "I am sorry Ms. Houle but you cannot attend tonites event because your skin is brown" or "Because you are an aboriginal". That would have been racist. Her initial reaction is understandable. To be angry, but to accuse of racism when there really is no grounds to support it is irresponsible. It is even more irresponsible for media to report it as such but, as usual, the media had to feed off of it. Winnipeg Sun reporter, Julie Horbal, sensaltionalised her story with the opening scathing words:

"Kim Houle is still struggling to explain the harsh realities of discrimination to her children and grandchildren"

I reversed the situation in my thoughts to try and get a better perspective. I recall some of my native friends, who have become Christians, sharing with me how they still attend sweat lodges. On occasion, there have been times where they were told by certain elders of a particular lodge that although they were welcome the "said" lodge only recognised Native spirituality and that they could leave their Christian faith at the door. As I put myself in their shoes, imagining attending a sweat lodge and being told I could not acknowledge Jesus Christ, I began to get a better appreciation for Kim's case.

However, if such an event took place, would I feel that it was due to racism? To answer that honestly, I must first recognise the realtiy that the lodge is there to honor the tenets of the Native beliefs. If I could not exercise my faith in it, I am under no obligation to attend, am I? Would I be hurt if I was turned away? Admittedly, yes. But would I feel I was discriminated against based on my race? Absolutley not. Where would they have said that I could not attend because I am a "Paleface"? I would be welcome as long as I respected and honored their practices in the lodge. If that was a problem for me, which it would be, rather then cry foul, I need to show respect for them as a people to do as they see fit within the tenets of their beliefs. Whether I agree or not. But for me to cry "Racism" is to make an issue where there is none.

So in the case of Kim Houle, the scenario itself, I believe, was mishandled by the Habitat 4 Humanity for first not communicating with the church early on regarding their policies. But keep in mind tha Kim was never once refused entry into the sanctuary because she happens to be Native. The claim of racism is a ludicrous one. As I stated earlier, I am not a member of the Church of the Rock, but I have attended a couple of the services there. The amount of skin color and ethnicity of that congregation would put the multi cultural community to shame. They just happen to all be Christians. But no one has ever been discriminated against based on race. The word, in this case, was used irrationally in what I believe to be the heat of the moment.

If we are to truly consider ourselves a tolerant melting pot of cultures then we must not allow ourselves to portray the "victim of oppression" by playing the all to accessible "Race" card. Especially where it is clearly not applicable.

Until next time...