Deacon Sandy, liturgical abuse, copyright, and you

[Dandelion_Wine]

This appalls me worse than Deacon Sandy’s abuse ever did.

That’s messed up.

I’m way more appalled by Deacon Sandy than by any technical violations of copyright laws or YouTube terms of use.

Somewhere in all of the ambiguity of Copyright law and the internet and such, you have lost your priorities.

…

Someone has their liturgical values skewed.

Thank you didymus & Hoosier Daddy.

I watched the alleged illegal video and it’s appalling. Just some quick stomach turners for me.

• ‘continue to talk in the worship space’.
• “enhance the liturgy” {as if the liturgy of the Mass needs (or could be) enhancing.}
• btw, what’s a “pre-mass”?
• no kneeler explanation. I cry foul. If the president walked in, I’d stand. If got walked in, I might stand momentarily on my way to my knees and possibly my face! Plus he talks about ‘culture’. I prefer my ‘catholic culture’ over my ‘united states culture’ when it comes to liturgical norms…
• mentions bowing to the crucifix and then the people. Hopefully the priest (and deacon?) kiss the altar shortly thereafter. Do they go out and kiss the assembly?
• communion to the homebound is not unique.

 

[Spudbynight]

I think it is a bit rich for Deacon Sandy to complain about copyright infringement.

Did he obtain permission to use the logos of all those brands in his homily where he attacked Pope Benedict?

 

[glendab]

Glenda

 

[pnewton]

I think there is a point in which free exercise of speech should trump copyright law, but then I am no fan of copyright law and see no problem with violating an unjust law for a moral reason. Attempting to make money, or avoid paying, for entertainment is not moral. Defending the faith against those who would destroy it is more important than any law of man.

In this case, I might see a concession to the law by just giving snippets of all the stupid things that are stated contrary to the Catholic faith, but then that would be most of the video.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

I’m not really qualified to speak on the legality of this, but if my priest suddenly decided to quit using Communion wafers in favor of bread baked by the Eucharistic ministers, I’d want it plastered all over the internet until something was done to get our parish practices back in line.

 

[DoGodsBidding]

I think there is a point in which free exercise of speech should trump copyright law, but then I am no fan of copyright law and see no problem with violating an unjust law for a moral reason. Attempting to make money, or avoid paying, for entertainment is not moral. Defending the faith against those who would destroy it is more important than any law of man.

In this case, I might see a concession to the law by just giving snippets of all the stupid things that are stated contrary to the Catholic faith, but then that would be most of the video.

 

[glendab]

Hello Gordon.

I’m not really qualified to speak on the legality of this, but if my priest suddenly decided to quit using Communion wafers in favor of bread baked by the Eucharistic ministers, I’d want it plastered all over the internet until something was done to get our parish practices back in line.

I think after looking over all that this thread contains and what went on at Good Shepherd Parish there in Milwaukee with their Dissident Deacon Sandy and what still goes on, I too think plastering the Internet with videos of their debauchery is perfect. Mass is after all a PUBLIC thing and everything that goes on in it IS PUBLIC domain. At Least it is supposed to be. The very fact that they are so obstinate in their sins and feel confident enough that the local Authorities are subdued enough to do lots of NOTHING about their ways to actually MAKE THEIR OWN VIDEOS of their immorality and post them in public places to SHOW OFF how much they can get away with, well need I say more? Tough. They need correction. Obviously they have no fear of the locals correcting their abuses but I guess they had second thoughts about persons outside of their direct control catching wind of what goes on there and that is the **only reason **why there was any *apology *by the Dissident Deacon Sandy. Any one who knows anything can see crocodile tears for what they are - phony. He’s sorry he got caught not sorry for his ways and hopes his apology will stop further actions against him and his co-conspirators.

Glenda

 

[Miserissima]

“Perfect” it would be if the videos were not illegally obtained.

There is a duty to protect the liturgy and Eucharist. Our new technology lets us “plaster” anything where we want. Using technology is left to prudential lodgement.

The blogger in question is guilty of detraction and perpetuating scandal to being attention to a Master that is not being resolved quickly enough (for them) by the Bishop.

Remember, the video was downloaded illegally,.and then posted to the blogger’s site. Then it was taken down. Then, according to a poster here, was put back UP because they believed the Deacon LIED.

It is reprehensible to use mass media to “shame” the diocese into action…to get the Bishop to act.

Detraction and perpetuating scandal.

If one really believes in the Eucharist, then one really believes in the authority of the Church. Keep on the diocesican office, collectively. But to post and repost is akin to agitation and perpetuating scandal.

Fighting fire with fire, when it comes to sin, is a dangerous game.

 

[glendab]

Excuse me Miserissima.

“Perfect” it would be if the videos were not illegally obtained.

There is a duty to protect the liturgy and Eucharist. Our new technology lets us “plaster” anything where we want. Using technology is left to prudential lodgement.

The blogger in question is guilty of detraction and perpetuating scandal to being attention to a Master that is not being resolved quickly enough (for them) by the Bishop.

Remember, the video was downloaded illegally,.and then posted to the blogger’s site. Then it was taken down. Then, according to a poster here, was put back UP because they believed the Deacon LIED.

It is reprehensible to use mass media to “shame” the diocese into action…to get the Bishop to act.

Detraction and perpetuating scandal.

If one really believes in the Eucharist, then one really believes in the authority of the Church. Keep on the diocesican office, collectively. But to post and repost is akin to agitation and perpetuating scandal.

Fighting fire with fire, when it comes to sin, is a dangerous game.

There is no detraction and perpetuating scandal by exposing what goes on there. If that were so, every person in the News industry would be guilty. The Mass is PUBLIC WORSHIP. It is a PUBLIC act and ever since the Church came out of the Catacombs of Rome, any one who wants to can sit in and watch. It isn’t a private chapel for the few privileged persons. Invite your neighbors to witness the Miracle of our Mass. You might be surprised how receptive they are to an invitation.

The real scandal is how they mistreat the Holy Sacrifice and think it is their private worship that they can do anything they feel like to. It is ours - yours and mine. It belongs to the faithful and it was given to us by God at the Last Supper. It isn’t up to anyone to change or add to it or interpret it for us or remove anything from it except the Church acting under the inspiration of the holy Spirit when moved to do so. When they do they hit the grand slam of sins - they sin against God, His Church Triumphant and Militant and every one else. That is the REAL SCANDAL.

The “Illegalities” of the use of the video aren’t determined here at all. They recorded their acts to share and show others how much they could get away with and posted their videos for all to see and enjoy. I got the feeling that they were “inviting” other dissidents to come join their “worship” services and expected applause on the Internet. They were upset with how many folks had a negative reaction and asked to have their video removed out of fear and shame not out of remorse. Please don’t ignore the major, grave sins they’ve committed and throw stones at those trying to stop them. The reason why they get away with so much is that others ignore their abuses and make excuses for them. Silence is one of the 9 ways to be accomplice to the sins of others. It is the call of the faithful to see to it that we all remain faithful, whether Deacon, Sister, Brother, Priest or Bishop. No one is above the LAW.

Glenda

 

[Miserissima]

Excuse me Miserissima.

There is no detraction and perpetuating scandal by exposing what goes on there.
If that were so, every person in the News industry would be guilty.

Glendb,

I get your point and your passion. Have you put any of that into a letter to Milwaukee or does only CAF get to read it?

Canon law is not the same as law of the land. One can’t compare two without saying “render unto Caesar.” That is why you call the local ordinary and not the police over liturgical abuse. That is why you call the diocese and not get a lawyer on retainer. That is why EWTN doesn’t have a daily “Liturgical Abuse Report.” (No self intinction in New England today!)

The difference between the sin of detraction and the local statutes of slander are not as close as one would think. “Detraction is the unjust damaging of another’s good name by the revelation of some fault or crime of which that other is really guilty.” Is the parish guilty? You betcha. So what is the next step? Posting all over the Internet because the Bishop isn’t moving “quickly enough?” Really? An entire blogsphere and that’s the best option?

I can see risking detraction and confessing it, based on one’s conviction. But how many complaining are driving to Menomenee Falls? Calling the superior of the Franciscan priests in rotation at the parish? Emailing the archdiocese? Just one person on CAF who confirmed the video was sent.

Continuing to bug the bishop is the right thing to do. I read here that all the info has been provided to him. To protect the Eucharist, we can try to bandwaggon on to that effort or we can just keep broadcasting. Which is more effective? Really, is comisserating over outrage better or contacting the appropriate authorities going to be more effective?

Public shaming has already been done. This is not the first thread here on the topic. Continually airing it through mass media is detraction and a demonstrable lack of faith in the established process of the Church.

Deacon Sandy is wrong in his actions. The three Franciscan priests who allowed this are wrong in theirs. I’m not arguing that. But we must think vertically, not horizontally.

If it is in the Bishop’s lap, let him do his job. If he doesn’t act, there is something in the hierarchical structure that vets like me call “chain of command.” One goes up the chain, not picks up a bullhorn to rally the proverbial troops. Trusting in the Church means one works with how it is structured.

After putting it in the hands of the Bishop and receiving a slow response, go up the chain, not scandalize others who sit behind a computer screen and say, “tsk, tsk.” Take action by using the system in place.

The Catholic sin of detraction is not the same as reporting the news. Continuing to bug the bishop is the right thing to do. I read here that all the info has been provided to the Bishop. To protect the Eucharist, we can try to bandwaggon on to that effort or we can just keep broadcasting.

Public shaming has already been done. This is not the first thread on the topic. Continually airing it through mass media is detraction and a demonstrable lack of faith in the established process of the Church.

Continue to call and write those who are involved. I did. “Lighting up the Blogosphere” by getting people riled up is not the best route: campaigning to get a petition for an investigation is another idea that hasn’t been coordinated (to my knowledge), but again, the Church has its process and is not a democracy.

I hope we have reconciled our definitions of detraction in light of Catholic teaching. I hope all both of our prayers and incessant reports to the archdiocese will ensure that this parish receives their right to a properly celebrated Mass. I hope that we can work with the Church and not against Her.

 

[pnewton]

Public shaming has already been done. This is not the first thread on the topic.

While I think you are correct in all you say, I remind you that this thread is not about Deacon Sandy’s actions but whether it is right or wrong to violate copyright law for the purpose of redressing wrongs (by individuals). The civil authority already has written in the law where copyright can be set aside to redress civil and criminal wrongs. Do others have the right to do so to redress moral wrongs? In light of this thread, the question needs to be asked whether the initial copyright violation to alert those who can make a change a moral act? It is regrettable that despite the OP’s plea this has become another “pile on Deacon Sandy” thread.

 

[Miserissima]

-]/-]

While I think you are correct in all you say, I remind you that this thread is not about Deacon Sandy’s actions but whether it is right or wrong to violate copyright law for the purpose of redressing wrongs (by individuals). The civil authority already has written in the law where copyright can be set aside to redress civil and criminal wrongs. Do others have the right to do so to redress moral wrongs? In light of this thread, the question needs to be asked whether the initial copyright violation to alert those who can make a change a moral act? It is regrettable that despite the OP’s plea this has become another “pile on Deacon Sandy” thread.

I will try to respond to your questions more clearly in my next post.

I think my last post refuted the,“pile on Deacon Sandy” notion. I responded to a poster who shared, “[t]he “Illegalities” of the use of the video aren’t determined here at all” and determined “[t]he real scandal is how they mistreat the Holy Sacrifice …].” According to the terms of use of YouTube, this video is not the property of the person who illegally downloaded it.

I want this nonsensery of a “revised” Mass to stop as much as the next outraged, indignant person. My point is that there is a proper, prudential way to go about correcting the parish (not Deacon Sandy per se, as there are no less than three Franciscan priests who rotate their schedules in that parish).

There is a process in place without having to get people mad or scandalized, especially who don’t have the capacity or capability to effect proper change.

I did read the blogs and was corrected here for my misunderstanding. I didn’t realize a third party had not only illegally downloaded the original video, but put it back up on YouTube. Does anyone else think the blogger who RE-linked to it is rationalizing their sin/crime by saying, “…after more questionable videos were posted, the blogger put [the pirated video] back up, because it was clear Dcn. sandy was not being genuine about his first apology.” So, even after providing the video to the bishop, we have the self appointed judge and jury via the blogosphere.

There also seems to be a distinct lack of understanding between civil/criminal/common law versus canon law. Also, the folks posting here and elsewhere glossed over the fact that there are priests even in the parish, who outrank Deacon Sandy. Those are the clergy who are bowing to the people and allowing elements of the Mass to be altered. Right? Although the Deacon is complicit, it’s not he who rewote the liturgy for the parishoners.

I know very well it’s difficult to be objective when it comes to the Eucharist. But if one is to be judge and jury over the bishop of the archdiocese, one must try.

Deacon Sandy naively exposed serious abuse of the Liturgy. Good. Now we can either use the proper channels to fix it our we can bellyache about it. I told you what my choice is: the way to respect the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord is to work with His Church and all the foibles of its human administration. After that, replicating an illegally downloaded video just causes scandal to the viewer, who doesn’t use tools and resources to ask for change/correction, but only blows smoke on the Internet, anonymously.

 

[glendab]

Hello Miserissima.

Glendb,

I get your point and your passion. Have you put any of that into a letter to Milwaukee or does only CAF get to read it? …I hope we have reconciled our definitions of detraction in light of Catholic teaching. I hope all both of our prayers and incessant reports to the archdiocese will ensure that this parish receives their right to a properly celebrated Mass. I hope that we can work with the Church and not against Her.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. But it is still your opinion. There are 9 ways to be accessory to the sins of another: by counsel, by command, by consent, by provocation, by praise or flattery, by concealment, by partaking, by silence, by defense of the ill done.

The definition of detraction according to my copy of Prummer’s Handbook of Theology is this: “Detraction is the unjust revelation of another’s genuine but hidden fault.” (298)

Now, since they chose first to video tape and show off their works, they exposed their “fault” (if you can minimalize such a grave sin as theirs to a mere fault) and so that eliminates the “hidden” requirement for the sin of detraction to apply, and then there is the “unjust” part. Was it “unjust” to copy something that was made public knowledge by the Church herself long before the Internet was even a thought in man’s mind? The Mass is public worship. Their version of it became even more so by their own actions. If it actually did go to court as a “copyright” infringement to show what they already did, it would fail muster.

Was it “unjust” for the Church to not allow such things as their Liturgical “interpretations?” Was it “unjust” for the Church to not allow anyone to alter the Liturgy on their own initiative? I think you can see where the injustice is.

My thoughts? It is unjust to withhold genuine Liturgy from all those within the boundaries of said Parish. And a few of the Nine Ways of being accomplice DO apply to certain persons who ARE in positions to DO something about a blatant disgrace.

It is my opinion that no sins of detraction occurred by discussion of the facts of the scandalous behaviors they themselves made videos of. Perhaps you could talk to Father Z and share your opinions about detraction on his blog.

As for me, I don’t live in Milwaukee but thousands of other Catholics do who can do something. One thing for sure, I wouldn’t be either silent nor partaking of nor consenting to nor defensive of nor (God forbid) praising of any of the Liturgical actions of the Deacon Sandy because he is a Deacon. He has co-conspirators. How’s that for an opinion?

But please excuse me; I’m no expert on anything except re-heating leftovers from Saturday’s dinner because it is Sunday.

Glenda

 

[Miserissima]

I remind you that this thread is not about Deacon Sandy’s actions but whether it is right or wrong to violate copyright law for the purpose of redressing wrongs (by individuals). The civil authority already has written in the law where copyright can be set aside to redress civil and criminal wrongs. Do others have the right to do so to redress moral wrongs? In light of this thread, the question needs to be asked whether the initial copyright violation to alert those who can make a change a moral act? .

If it is a necessary risk of a lesser sin to act against the state (copyright law) to protect the Eucharist, then yes, protect Him.

Once that is done, one has rendered into God what is his. Then, one must render unto Caesar, if Caesar gets involved.,

To perpetuate “inductive scandal”, as many bloggers have done, is a separate moral issue. The qualifier here for a new can o’ worms is that the video had already been provided to the Bishop.

I can’t help but think of Fr. Corapi. His sins were brought to light, and even after the"Black Sheep Dog" website went live, CAF rallied to storm Heaven with prayers for him throughout his continued error. I haven’t heard one prayer for a ENTIRE misguided parish.

After a person renders to God and then to the state, there is nothing left to say. Catholic duty comes first to a well formed conscience.
The video was illegally downloaded and sent to the archdiocese, per a poster here. If the Church doesn’t respond in a “timely manner” (that is a relative term), there are courses of action to take within the Church body.

In civil law, downloading the video is a bad thing. Providing the pirated video on CD isn’t going to increase the charges. This is noble to protect the Eucharist.

After the video has been provided but it has been reuploaded for public viewing again and again, flies in the face of both authorities, for different reasons.

Ironically, Church and local law agree: to continue to post and repost this video is a. criminally illegal (state) and b. scandalous (Church) – especially since the authorities were given a copy. But, because the church authorities didn’t act “quickly enough” for the random blogger, the video will be replicated and posted all over hither and yon. That is a progression of nonsense that is not edifying to the Faithful.

Again, to not trust the Bishop to act is to demonstrate distrust in His Church. IF there is a valid reason to distrust the Bishop to act or not, there is a prudential way of addressing the issue without having to sin against God OR the State.

The initial sin (church) and crime (state) of downloading the video to provide it to the Bishop should have been enough. Calling on the Internet has and will continue to cause further scandal.

Anyone who downloads a video (from the secular world) illegally to send to the (religious ) authorities has to reconcile a minor sin to protect the greater good. This is laudable, but still a sin. A lesser sin than an ad hoc “Mass,” but still a sin. This sin is made greater when a crusade is made after the appropriate authorities have been notified.
At this point, since the Bishop has the video, there is no need to perpetuate scandal by having an illegally pirated copy on YouTube. This, again, is where Church and state agree.

After informing the church authorities, what is the point of parish shaming, or Bishop shaming, until the necessary rectification has taken place – especially with a pirated video made again public, and bloggers link to it? This isn’t Caesar I’m talking about, now. This is the moral law.

The video going back on YouTube has not borne good fruit. This is the “moral litmus test.”

Do others have the right to redress moral wrongs? In this case, only so far as the established Church process allows. It’s been reported. Now we are moving from detraction to scandalizing the Faithful. I would not ask to wear THAT millstone, thank you very much.

(But if your question was meant to be more broad, my friend was given a penance of paying back a store or putting money in the poor box equal to the amount which she had stolen. I did not have the ‘right’ to give her the money, I had the privilege to help. I would help to pay the fines of the person who provided the first illegal copy to the archdiocese. I would not pay fines for the person who is keeping an illegal copy up on YouTube after that point.)

To download the video to show the canonical authorities is noble, perhaps because we live in a nation that equates Civil Disobedience as a first response to injustice. This may be what Pope John Paul II called “the American Problem.”

To perpetuate the sin of detraction that has rapidly become scandal (because the authorities aren’t acting quickly enough for one) is just a hair shy of reprehensible.

 

[pnewton]

The definition of detraction according to my copy of Prummer’s Handbook of Theology is this: “Detraction is the unjust revelation of another’s genuine but hidden fault.” (298)

The definition of detraction that we are to apply is:

of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;

If and when someone needs to know faults of another, it is not detraction. In absence of a valid reason to reveal information to someone, detraction exists, according to the Catholic Church. Reason, not justice is the criteria.

 

[markomalley]

(snip)

I did read the blogs and was corrected here for my misunderstanding. I didn’t realize a third party had not only illegally downloaded the original video, but put it back up on YouTube. Does anyone else think the blogger who RE-linked to it is rationalizing their sin/crime by saying, “…after more questionable videos were posted, the blogger put [the pirated video] back up, because it was clear Dcn. sandy was not being genuine about his first apology.” So, even after providing the video to the bishop, we have the self appointed judge and jury via the blogosphere.

There also seems to be a distinct lack of understanding between civil/criminal/common law versus canon law. Also, the folks posting here and elsewhere glossed over the fact that there are priests even in the parish, who outrank Deacon Sandy. Those are the clergy who are bowing to the people and allowing elements of the Mass to be altered. Right? Although the Deacon is complicit, it’s not he who rewote the liturgy for the parishoners.

(snip)

17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

It is highly doubtful whether or not anything illegal happened in the first place (in ref to your comment about civil law). The purpose of the use of the work was non-commercial. It was re-posted for the purpose of criticism and comment (two points that are explicitly allowed in the above section of the Code). The original work was non-commercial – it was freely published on YouTube and shared out. Therefore, there were no damages done (except, possibly, to Deacon Sandy’s pride).

Copyright is to protect creators from material damage – in other words to protect their ability to market their creations and to prevent others from reaping material gain by using their material to gain profit. Copyright is not in place to protect creators from the consequences of their own foolishness.

In this case, there was no material damage done. The original creator of the work was not impeded from selling his work: he posted it non-commercially. The person re-posting it re-posted it non-commercially. It would be a different thing if the person re-posting the video burned it to DVD and attempted to sell it. That’s not the case here.

Now you may well want to talk about the tone of the bloggers who embedded this video and commented on it…whether it fell into the category of detraction, calumny, or rash judgment. That may be a legitimate discussion. But I think it’s pretty clear that the video re-posting falls under “fair use” by the law.

 

[glendab]

Bravo Mark O’Malley! Bravo! :clapping:

17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

It is highly doubtful whether or not anything illegal happened in the first place (in ref to your comment about civil law). The purpose of the use of the work was non-commercial. It was re-posted for the purpose of criticism and comment (two points that are explicitly allowed in the above section of the Code). The original work was non-commercial – it was freely published on YouTube and shared out. Therefore, there were no damages done (except, possibly, to Deacon Sandy’s pride).

Copyright is to protect creators from material damage – in other words to protect their ability to market their creations and to prevent others from reaping material gain by using their material to gain profit. Copyright is not in place to protect creators from the consequences of their own foolishness.

In this case, there was no material damage done. The original creator of the work was not impeded from selling his work: he posted it non-commercially. The person re-posting it re-posted it non-commercially. It would be a different thing if the person re-posting the video burned it to DVD and attempted to sell it. That’s not the case here.

Now you may well want to talk about the tone of the bloggers who embedded this video and commented on it…whether it fell into the category of detraction, calumny, or rash judgment. That may be a legitimate discussion. But I think it’s pretty clear that the video re-posting falls under “fair use” by the law.

Nice job. Play it again Sam.

Glenda

 

[markomalley]

Bravo Mark O’Malley! Bravo! :clapping:

Nice job. Play it again Sam.

Glenda

An analogous situation would be this:

Say you make a particularly foolish post here on CAF. It’s so foolish that some lurker copies and pastes it over to his blog, re-posts it and takes several paragraphs to shred it. Then a couple of other bloggers pick it up from that blog and pile on.

You are made aware of the blogs that shred it and then go back to the appropriate CAF moderator and ask him to delete your post. Somehow, miraculously, he does so.

You can go to the bloggers who shredded your words and beg…no, plead…with them, asking them to remove the posts where they shredded you. But are they legally obliged to do so?

How about if, after this incident, you put a copyright notice in your signature line (assuming the mods allow it to stay)?

 

[glendab]

Yeah,

An analogous situation would be this:

Say you make a particularly foolish post here on CAF. It’s so foolish that some lurker copies and pastes it over to his blog, re-posts it and takes several paragraphs to shred it. Then a couple of other bloggers pick it up from that blog and pile on.

You are made aware of the blogs that shred it and then go back to the appropriate CAF moderator and ask him to delete your post. Somehow, miraculously, he does so.

You can go to the bloggers who shredded your words and beg…no, plead…with them, asking them to remove the posts where they shredded you. But are they legally obliged to do so?

How about if, after this incident, you put a copyright notice in your signature line (assuming the mods allow it to stay)?

Kinda like saying “…everything said here can be used against you in a court of law…”

And who would be dumb enough to try?

But come to think of it some here have shredded me or at least tried and I’m still not bothered too much.

Glenda

Glenda

 

[Miserissima]

Is downloading video from YouTube a violation of the terms of service? Who cares if one cannot get caught, correct?

This is why I initially used the term “licit” instead of “legal.” I should have stuck with that. Digressing, tell me what part of the following agreement from YouTube is unclear:

"YouTube hereby grants you permission to access and use the Service, subject to the following express conditions, and you agree that your failure to adhere to any of these conditions shall constitute a breach of these Terms on your part: …]

“You agree not to access Content for any reason other than your personal, non-commercial use solely as intended through and permitted by the normal functionality of the Service, and solely for Streaming …] You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content.”

Who is the respective licensor of the initial content? Good Shepherd Parish. Not YouTube. Not the person who downloaded and reuploaded it under a different account.

Since when does,“for personal use” mean “save and upload for public viewing?”

Per a CNET article from way back in 2008, “…users could unknowingly be liable if they click on the wrong YouTube link. The fact that they’re not aware that a video was illegally uploaded is irrelevant. All that matters is that they clicked on a link, and watched the video.”
m.cnet.com/news/legal-liability-for-youtube-viewers/9936833

It is hardly a prosecutable crime…but not does not getting caught make it less of a sin of detraction or less complicit in a crime?