J
jamessmith
Guest
Well boo hoo for deacon sandy. Maybe if he would act like an obedient son of the church, none of this would have happened. I say: good for Ben, exposing the darkness.
- Status
M
Miserissima
Guest
Thank you. That clarifies a lot. It doesn’t make it right that the blog author knew it was swiped and instead of having it posted again, prudential judgment dictates it would have been provided to the proper church authorities.
J
jamessmith
Guest
It has been provided to proper church authorities. Both/and, people.
E
Elizium23
Guest
So you’re saying that two wrongs make a right?
If someone murdered your sister, and you knew that the murder weapon was in their house, would you break into the house and steal the weapon for evidence? Do you realize that any judge worth his salt would disallow the evidence and invalidate your case built around it?
J
jamessmith
Guest
Now THIS makes perfect sense. Equating minor copyright violation to murder. Yup.
E
Elizium23
Guest
Who says I was equating it? I was making an analogy. I am the first person to suggest that the gravity of these two situations is unequal. But they are equivalent in the facts of the case. We are now working with stolen evidence to prove a (liturgical) crime. Those are the facts.
And I will suggest it again: why can’t someone local go in to the church and videotape the proceedings on their own? This is a public place. The video footage we have is not irreplaceable, it’s just that nobody’s got the guts to do it right.
J
jamessmith
Guest
Stolen video? Puuuulease. He posted it publically on the internet. No need to video the wackyness if they’ve already done it.
E
Elizium23
Guest
I see that none of you have bothered reading the blog posts given as backstory, so I will again link to Taking Down the Deacon Sandy Video, which explains why the good Deacon took down his explanatory video. He says that some of its content and tone were evaluated by his parish and judged to be unclear, inappropriate, and unsuitable to represent the parish community, so the video was withdrawn in order to revise it. Don’t you think that if the makers themselves have expressed their wish to revise their view about the very issues we have a problem with, they should be allowed to make changes to the video without the old one being held up as an example of their transgressions? This is simply dragging their name through the mud. This is sensationalism, and tabloid journalism. This is not an effort to right a wrong, it is not an effort to report facts. It is now theft and bearing false witness in order to make a point, and I resent it not only from Benedictgal but especially coming from two well-respected Catholic priests who should know better than to denigrate a brother cleric.
E
Elizium23
Guest
Actually that’s not at all what I did - if you understood my analogy you would realize you’re incredibly wrong. I compared (not equated) liturgical abuse to murder.
R
randomuser
Guest
Key word: bother. Yes, it’s bothersome and too time-consuming for what should be casual web browsing, and you are making an assumption that everyone reading this knows the controversy to which you are referring. I am still terribly confused by all this. I ask again: Could somebody please “TL DR” (internet slang for summarize, as in: ‘too long didn’t read’) this for me? What I’m asking if you can summarize - in your own words, specifically one or two sentences maximum (not a Dostoyevsky novel) - what’s the issue here? There’s way, way, way, way, way too much “back story.”
J
jamessmith
Guest
Key word: bother. Yes, it’s bothersome and too time-consuming for what should be casual web browsing, and you are making an assumption that everyone reading this knows the controversy to which you are referring. I am still terribly confused by all this. I ask again: Could somebody please “TL DR” (internet slang for summarize, as in: ‘too long didn’t read’) this for me? What I’m asking if you can summarize - in your own words, specifically one or two sentences maximum (not a Dostoyevsky novel) - what’s the issue here? There’s way, way, way, way, way too much “back story.”
- nutty deacon posts video a long time in the past bragging about his nutty parish and all the disobedience that he encourages.
- Within the last month, a blogger found it and showed the world.
- The deacon took down the video, seeking to hide evidence of his sin.
- other bloggers put it back on YouTube (they had downloaded it before the deacon took it down), so that the world could see the truth
- Elizium23 is having a hissy fit about minor copyright laws, because of the people who put it back up.
J
jamessmith
Guest
There’s nothing inordinately long about the original post… This is a discussion forum not the randomuser commentary show… With all due respect, you should either read the post or skip commenting. We’re not talking about a 40 paragraph initial post here. That’s probably why your first post got ignored.Key word: bother. Yes, it’s bothersome and too time-consuming for what should be casual web browsing, and you are making an assumption that everyone reading this knows the controversy to which you are referring. I am still terribly confused by all this. I ask again: Could somebody please “TL DR” (internet slang for summarize, as in: ‘too long didn’t read’) this for me? What I’m asking if you can summarize - in your own words, specifically one or two sentences maximum (not a Dostoyevsky novel) - what’s the issue here? There’s way, way, way, way, way too much “back story.”
R
randomuser
Guest
No, with all due respect and expressing this during the Lenten season when we all should be a little more charitable, the original post is not “inordinately long,” but content of the numerous links is - and if there were a 40-paragraph limit on those seemingly never-ending links, I would not have to ask for clarification, which I respectfully submit is not exactly unreasonable given the time constraints on my day. (I certainly wasn’t expecting to be attacked for asking a simple question.)
E
Elizium23
Guest
Sure, I can oblige, given that it’s been asked twice now.
A couple weeks ago, a few videos appeared on YouTube from Good Shepherd Parish in Wisconsin. A few bloggers picked up on them and the fact that they contained and extensively documented blatant liturgical abuses of the typical banal liberal “spirit of Vatican II” variety. Righteous Blogosphere and Twitterverse Indignation followed, whereupon Deacon Sandy, who is the “Parish Director”, removed the YouTube videos from the official parish channel, and sent messages to these bloggers and requested that they take them down as well. My OP describes the rest of the story here.
A couple weeks ago, a few videos appeared on YouTube from Good Shepherd Parish in Wisconsin. A few bloggers picked up on them and the fact that they contained and extensively documented blatant liturgical abuses of the typical banal liberal “spirit of Vatican II” variety. Righteous Blogosphere and Twitterverse Indignation followed, whereupon Deacon Sandy, who is the “Parish Director”, removed the YouTube videos from the official parish channel, and sent messages to these bloggers and requested that they take them down as well. My OP describes the rest of the story here.
M
Miserissima
Guest
Random user:
BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front):
Blogger linked to parish video on YouTube.
The said video was taken down by parish from YouTube after negative reaction.
Meanwhile, random internet user downloaded the video, to which blogger linked.
That video has now been removed from blogger’s site.
BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front):
Blogger linked to parish video on YouTube.
The said video was taken down by parish from YouTube after negative reaction.
Meanwhile, random internet user downloaded the video, to which blogger linked.
That video has now been removed from blogger’s site.
J
jamessmith
Guest
The video is actualy back up on the blogger’s site. Initially Deacon sandy apologied and gave the appearance of repentance. But after more questionable videos were posted, the blogger put it back up, because it was clear Dcn. sandy was not being genuine about his first apology.
M
Miserissima
Guest
That’s a pity to have a Catholic blogger not trust in the efficacy of the Church to remediate this parish issue. We Americans want it now. The Church isn’t so quick.
Detraction is also a huge concern, as Internet archiving and leaving previous posts should be enough record, especially if indexed by Google.
J
jamessmith
Guest
I probably know more about this situation than you do (and not just because I’ve read the blog articles more carefully, there’s much more to it than that). What has been happening in the blogosphere is happening precisely because the local church has done nothing. This is not a short term issue that is new to his superiors. Hopefully the publicity of the videos will have an effect in the way private communication with the bishop will not.
M
markomalley
Guest
I’ve been thinking about this for a while. Intellectual Property Rights are a matter of interest for me (as I’ve had my IP stolen before…with considerable economic damage to me resulting from that theft).
The issue is that I’m not certain that this would qualify as a theft of IP. Part of copyright law allows for “fair use” – for educational purposes and for commentary, criticism, etc.
The copyright office has the following information regarding fair use (there is a whole fact sheet on it, but here are the salient points):
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.
The issue is that I’m not certain that this would qualify as a theft of IP. Part of copyright law allows for “fair use” – for educational purposes and for commentary, criticism, etc.
The copyright office has the following information regarding fair use (there is a whole fact sheet on it, but here are the salient points):
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.
*]The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
*] The nature of the copyrighted work
*] The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
*] The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
Let’s take a look at each of the four points:- Was the use of this work for commercial use? (In other words, are Pat Archbold or Father Z making money from selling the Deacon Sandy vidio). The answer is “no.”
- What was the nature of the copyrighted work (assuming it was actually under copyright)? It was not a commercial product – it was not being offered for sale anyplace.
- The amount used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: Granted, the person who re-posted the work, posted the whole video.
- The effect on the market? The video was, as far as I know, never offered for sale. Therefore, the copyright owner did not suffer any economic damage as the result of it being re-posted, linked, embedded, or anything else.
The fact of the matter is that Deacon Sandy and All Saints Catholic Community uploaded a video of them acting very, very questionably. They were called on it and want to make it go away. Copyright is designed to prevent economic damage as the result of intellectual property theft. It is not designed to prevent a person from embarrassment.
I think the correct action is to self-censor and make sure that anything they upload won’t be an embarrassment in the future. Or to straighten their act up so they don’t have to worry about that.
J
jamessmith
Guest
That’s a good point. Let’s nor pretend that deacon sandy was selling this video or making any sort of profit on it. I saw the original ad, and there were not YouTube ads on it, meaning that it is very likely that he had no economic impact as a result of it going up or down.
Let’s not pretend this is a bigger deal than it actually is.
Let’s not pretend this is a bigger deal than it actually is.
- Status