Copyright Infringement, Civil Law, Disqus, and Sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter DoughnutGuy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DoughnutGuy

Guest
This might take some explaining, so please bear with me.

I have an account on a social media platform (called Disqus), which has more than 160,000 comments dating back to 2012. Over that time, I have posted a lot of memes, gifs, and other pictures from shows and films. I never once considered that I might be doing anything illegal or immoral by doing so. However, I have just been reading up on the law of copyright in my country (New Zealand), and it turns out that I may have been unintentionally breaching copyright all this time. Even my profile picture, an image of Yoda, would seem to infringe copyright. I have tried looking online for advice, but most of the material I can find relates to American law, which does not seem to be as restrictive as New Zealand law.

Now, I know that breaking a just civil law is a sin, although not necessarily always a mortal one. Going forward, then, my course is clear: I just have to change my profile picture and stop posting copyrighted material without a licence. My concern is about the 160,000-odd comments I have made in the past. As long as those comments are still online, I am still (let us assume) infringing copyright. However, it is impossible for me to go back over all of them to delete all the ones that infringe copyright (my computer would break long before it could load all of them). So I am wondering whether I should just delete my account, because that is the only way I could ensure I have deleted all the infringing comments.

This might seem like an easy thing to do, but after seven years and 160,000 comments, I really feel like that account is a part of me. Talking to people online has helped me deal with stress and depression. I have made a lot of friends with that account, of which I do not have many offline. I feel like I have found a place in a community of people who share similar interests with me (I have a place in the Church, of course, but the people I know at Church do not necessarily have the same interests). I also have responsibilities as a moderator there, and I cannot be replaced (please understand that this is not bragging: because Disqus no longer supports my community, I literally cannot be replaced). So deleting my account would cause quite a commotion and upset more than a few people (myself included).

All of that being said, I am not trying to make excuses. I will delete my account if I conclude that I am morally obligated to do so. It is just that, given (what I consider to be) the stakes, I want to be absolutely clear on what I have to do. Since I am not making money from these images (or depriving their owners of money), I am strongly disinclined to think that this level of copyright infringement is grave matter. Even so, I could potentially be committing at least a venial sin by keeping those images online.

Hence my question for you, dear reader: assuming that some (okay, a lot) of those comments are still infringing copyright and that I am therefore technically infringing the civil law of my jurisdiction, am I committing a sin by not deleting the comments or my account? I would appreciate any advice.
 
I don’t think you need to delete your account. You could delete specific posts (or remove the memes) if you get a specific complaint from Getty images, or whatever, that is directed at you. But like you said, you aren’t stealing money from any of these big multinationals (in fact it’s kinda free advertising ha)!

Maybe use more discretion in future, but don’t delete your account. In my opinion. But maybe mention it to your priest anyway to put your mind at rest and to be sure.

Anyone can reference material right? Like you can quote stuff in academia as long as you acknowledge the source? Maybe just start putting little footnotes in with the source if you use a meme from a movie and make a joke about it?
 
Last edited:
This is something you need to ask a lawyer in your country. I am familiar with American copyright laws only. Nevertheless, a lawyer needs to be consulted, regardless of country, on the technicalities.

As for the sin issue, what you have done is not mortal and may not even be grave. What you should do, if anything, ought to be discussed with your confessor.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary
 
The way I understand it is there are two separate issues here. One is the “sin” side of the matter and then there is the secular side of the matter.

You say all these past possible infringements at the time of acting were committed without you realising that doing so did infringe the law. Therefore these were not done with full knowledge, so I would think this may make them venial.
Does the number of times of infringing make it greater? I don’t know, so if it was me, I’d ask my priest in confession about it.
As in all matters of sin against charity there is the issue of reparation, to recompense another for the harm done them.

Objectively it sounds like these might infringe copyright. I would think justice demands they be removed. Could you not delete them in batches, rather than trying to delete all in one swoop so as you say trying to load 160,000 doesn’t break your computer?

These are just my thoughts/opinion on the matter. You are best advised to speak with your priest and obtain his counsel on this.
 
Another thing: maybe NZ law just doesn’t have a provision for memes (or satirical derivative works, if you like) because it’s a bit behind the times, but it might not have expressedly forbidden them. Most countries have a fair use policy and I don’t think most copyright holders care about memes. Can you imagine NZ parliament banning memes? I doubt they would be interested in trying to do that. There is the letter of the law to take into account, but there is also the intent of the law. And most of these laws were written before social media exploded.
 
Last edited:
I have been doing the same thing on FaceBook.

After awhile I started seeing if I could share images from original site.

But still I have pulled off images from the www and posted them as my own even and especially with a few of what I mentioned in another post.

I would strongly reconsider deleting your account. You kind of should but you really shouldn’t just that you’ve made friends which has made you happy and most importantly probably made more friends happy.

Instead of deleting 16000 posts maybe you should go back and say no copyright infringement intended and do that going forward so as long as it’s just a few pictures or short videos.

If you feel you are breaking the law don’t do it anymore and explain. Posts share links if necessary.

Definitely deleting your account washes away and starts anew but I don’t think you should abandoned your friends you made online.

It’s probably best to not do that stuff anymore going forward.

The priest always says “look not on our sins but of our faith” and “peace I leave with you” and we share that peace.

As for the civil criminal lawsuits I’d really not worry too much. Like I said going forward don’t do it anymore, and probably a lot of those old 16,000 posts are already Archieved/deleted. Usually they just delete them or deactivate or account but usually they give you a warning first before deleting your account…at least that’s the way it works here.

Sorry if I’m repeating myself, this iPad is only showing a tiny box.
 
Yes, I agree that the law is hopelessly outdated and not fit for the age of what one might call ‘internet culture’. It might well be that, if this went before a court (not that it ever will), the court would interpret the law in my favour. In that case, there would be no sin. I suppose I shall have to seek legal advice, as Bro Ignatius suggested.
 
I recall reading a Jimmy Akin post once arguing that in some cases a law that is not enforced is one we are not required to follow, e.g. if the cops wouldn’t pull you up for driving 61 in a 60 zone then it’s not a sin to do so either

It’s hard to argue that it’s be directly against the commandment “thou shalt not steal” either if you’re not profiting from the memes, nor using them as a way to consume content without paying (since you take such a small fraction of the work when you make a meme)
 
I believe I have read the article to which you refer. Applying Akin’s analysis, it would be irrational for the state (or the copyright holder) to try to regulate the use of memes. Hence, on Akin’s interpretation of Aquinas, the law would not bind morally. This may be the solution to my dilemma. After all, I have no doubt that the copyright law is never going to be enforced against me. My only fear is that of divine punishment. If Akin is right, the fact that I do not need to fear civil punishment means that I do not need to fear divine punishment either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top