How Serious is it to Violate Copyright?

[S_V7]

Related to another thread I posted. In Father Robert Altier’s examination of conscience, violating copyrights is listed under grave matter.

catholicparents.org/oxcart/examination.html

!?!?!?!?!?!??!

Considering the strictness (in my opinion) of copyright laws, is this accurate? Would it depend on the amount or gravity of the violation?

I believe I’ve broken these laws hundreds of times (songs, pictures…I’m suppose to present a Powerpoint with music soon and I’m 99.9% sure that violates copyright law. also we are likely to see a movie in my CCD class and I highly doubt my teacher has permission to show it) and, unless permission was granted, I think my parish has broken them quite a few times.

?

 

[ThatGuy]

I don’t know how to answer this. But I’m pretty sure it’s impossible to live daily life without violating copyright somehow.

 

[Tietjen]

I have wondered the same thing. For example, if I happen to be working during the time a certain football team is playing. Do I commit a mortal sin by recording it to watch later? You may notice that at the beginning of an NFL football game an announcement comes on saying:
“This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL’s consent, is prohibited.”

Now, how about this scenario… I rent a movie at blockbuster. It’s a two day rental and I’m called into work during the time I had set aside to watch it. Is it a mortal sin to copy the movie to watch at a later time as I head out the door for work? I’m not talking about copying it to sell or to make money on, I’m talking about copying it to avoid having to again rent the movie.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

I don’t know how to answer this. But I’m pretty sure it’s impossible to live daily life without violating copyright somehow.

That is true. Remember that people are hyper-sensitive nowadays over Intellectual Property. It is often controlled way beyond normal day to day common sense. This control freakishness in the laws of course comes down to maximizing money returns for the IP holder.

 

[drafdog]

The seriousness of copyright violation is related morally to its seriousness as a civil or criminal offense. In order to know the legal seriousness, you must depart this forum and enquire of an attorney who specializes in this particular area which includes all matters relating to intellectual property rights. Now go to the state bar association and ask for a referral. Be prepared to pay for expert knowledge. The laborer is worthy of his hire.

Matthew

 

[S_V7]

Ok so here’s one issue I’m looking at. Our parish is thinking about performing a skit using the song Everything by Lifehouse in a festival soon. How serious does that seem?

 

[S_V7]

Going along with my previous post: how serious would watching and sending this video (saw it on GodTube.com) be? Does anyone have any idea as to cost?

 

[manualman]

I don’t think people really understand copyright laws.

Taping a football game to watch later? Even by the message you quote, watching it yourself for private use later is no violation. Now if you were to sell COPIES…

If you own a CD or paid to download it and want to use it as a background music for a non-profit event, I don’t think that qualifies either. Now if you SOLD copies of the slideshow as a fundraiser…

If you watch the movie you copied for a couple days like you originally intended, then it’s not stealing. If you KEEP it and/or send it to some other friends for THEM to watch then you’re stealing.

This isn’t brain surgery. Sounds like some rationalizing going on here.

 

[seekerz]

I don’t think people really understand copyright laws.

Taping a football game to watch later? Even by the message you quote, watching it yourself for private use later is no violation. Now if you were to sell COPIES…

If you own a CD or paid to download it and want to use it as a background music for a non-profit event, I don’t think that qualifies either. Now if you SOLD copies of the slideshow as a fundraiser…

If you watch the movie you copied for a couple days like you originally intended, then it’s not stealing. If you KEEP it and/or send it to some other friends for THEM to watch then you’re stealing.

This isn’t brain surgery. Sounds like some rationalizing going on here.

Oh, it can get pretty complicated. How about watching something on YouTube which is not the poster’s original work, not knowing whether that person has the right to exhibit said clip (most likely not)?

Downloading without paying is clearly breaking copyright, but what about listening to or watching streaming copyrighted material. Some argue it’s immoral because the site owner may not have the right to broadcast the movie/song publicly, others feel it’s no different from inviting someone home to watch a movie (I feel the latter may be a stretch, can your website really be considered an extension of your home?)

What makes it murky is that there really doesn’t seem to be a concerted move against sites streaming content as there was against the illegal music download sites, which makes me feel there must be a legal loophole somewhere.

Clarity, anyone?

 

[Holly3278]

I think it depends on just how much you copy that wasn’t supposed to belong to you. Say you download a song from Kazaa or whatever, it’s not the same as if you were downloading the whole CD. Say you reproduce 20 copies of an article for use in your Sunday School class. It’s not the same as reproducing that article and selling it to your Sunday School class. So in some cases violating a copyright can be very serious but in other cases its really not that serious at all. I don’t think that violating the copyright on something could really be a mortal sin in Catholic theology but then again, I’m not certain.

 

[S_V7]

I don’t think people really understand copyright laws.

Taping a football game to watch later? Even by the message you quote, watching it yourself for private use later is no violation. Now if you were to sell COPIES…

If you own a CD or paid to download it and want to use it as a background music for a non-profit event, I don’t think that qualifies either. Now if you SOLD copies of the slideshow as a fundraiser…

If you watch the movie you copied for a couple days like you originally intended, then it’s not stealing. If you KEEP it and/or send it to some other friends for THEM to watch then you’re stealing.

This isn’t brain surgery. Sounds like some rationalizing going on here.

from this site

templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

some mild language used on the site

1. “If I don’t charge for it, it’s not a violation.”
   False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that’s main difference under the law. It’s still a violation if you give it away – and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property. There is a USA exception for personal copying of music, which is not a violation, though courts seem to have said that doesn’t include widescale anonymous personal copying as Napster. If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action. Fair use determinations (see below) do sometimes depend on the involvement of money.

Copyright is still violated whether you charged money or not, only damages are affected by that.

 

[Tietjen]

Taping a football game to watch later? Even by the message you quote, watching it yourself for private use later is no violation. Now if you were to sell COPIES…

Actually the quote does not address “copying and watching it later.” It leaves the term “use” open for individual interruptation.

If you watch the movie you copied for a couple days like you originally intended, then it’s not stealing. If you KEEP it and/or send it to some other friends for THEM to watch then you’re stealing.

So copying the movie is not stealing so long as I don’t keep the movie too long? Interesting.

This isn’t brain surgery. Sounds like some rationalizing going on here.

Rationalizing? I suppose that might be a possibility. However, I don’t believe that it is as clear as you seem to make it out to be. Regardless, the “brain surgery” comment was probably not necessary. Perhaps, I am simply an idiot. We cannot all be engineers. Still, thanks for your opinions.

 

[Gisella]

How many people actually know copyright law? Unless you’re in some kind of business where this knowledge is needed I don’t think it’s worth even thinking about.

 

[S_V7]

How many people actually know copyright law? Unless you’re in some kind of business where this knowledge is needed I don’t think it’s worth even thinking about.

well for one thing, no one wants to get sued

 

[jmcrae]

Related to another thread I posted. In Father Robert Altier’s examination of conscience, violating copyrights is listed under grave matter.

catholicparents.org/oxcart/examination.html

!?!?!?!?!?!??!

Yes, it’s considered “theft.”

Considering the strictness (in my opinion) of copyright laws, is this accurate? Would it depend on the amount or gravity of the violation?

I believe I’ve broken these laws hundreds of times (songs, pictures…I’m suppose to present a Powerpoint with music soon and I’m 99.9% sure that violates copyright law. also we are likely to see a movie in my CCD class and I highly doubt my teacher has permission to show it) and, unless permission was granted, I think my parish has broken them quite a few times.

?

Schools and parishes can easily get movie licenses - it’s $199/yr for an Audio Cine license, which includes MGM, Paramount, Universal, Nickleodeon, Alliance Atlantis, Miramax, and others. Audiences cannot exceed 79 people at one time, which would exclude a whole-school assembly, but would certainly cover anything a teacher wanted to show in a classroom.

For music, I have always just approached the song-writer individually, by e-mail or else by telephone, and asked permission to use particular songs or particular albums for teaching purposes; I have never yet been turned down. Parishes and schools can also join LicenSing, which covers a wide variety of music for something like $100.00 a year.

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t know how to answer this. But I’m pretty sure it’s impossible to live daily life without violating copyright somehow.

There is a “fair use” provision in copyright law which covers all of the ordinary things that people normally do with printed materials, audio materials, and videos.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Romans 13

 

[S_V7]

concerning videos:

Non-compliance with The Copyright Act is considered infringement and carries steep and significant penalties. Such exhibitions are federal crimes and subject to a $150,000 penalty per exhibition (Section 506). In addition, even inadvertent infringers are subject to substantial civil damages ($750 to $30,000 for each illegal showing) and other penalties. (Sections 502-505)

mplc.org/aboutLaw.php

sounds pretty serious to me

 

[S_V7]

mplc.org/faq.php

very interesting ^

 

[Cristiano]

There is a “fair use” provision in copyright law which covers all of the ordinary things that people normally do with printed materials, audio materials, and videos.

Try to answer this question and see if your statement is correct. You are the legal owner of an audio CD, can you change its format to MP3 for your own personal use?