How Serious is it to Violate Copyright?

[jmcrae]

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?

Yes. “Fair use” allows you to play the CD in whatever format you happen to be using, at the moment.

Where it goes wrong is when you start lending out or selling the resulting copies to your friends.

 

[S_V7]

Here’s another relevant FAQ I found

mpa.org/copyright_resource_center/church_musician#q5

can someone explain this # 9? What exactly is a “religious work”?

18 ?!?!?!?!?​

 

[jmcrae]

Here’s another relevant FAQ I found

mpa.org/copyright_resource_center/church_musician#q5

can someone explain this # 9? What exactly is a “religious work”?

A hymn.

 

[Cristiano]

Yes. “Fair use” allows you to play the CD in whatever format you happen to be using, at the moment.

Where it goes wrong is when you start lending out or selling the resulting copies to your friends.

Wrong!! The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) as the representative of the owners of most of the copyrighted music is stating that it is illegal to change the file format and/or physical medium of the music recorded in the CD that you own even if it is for personal use. For example RIAA states that you cannot cannot change the music into an MP3 format and play it on your computer or iPod. However, it appears that you can still play the CD with your computer.

This point is just to make a case that the “fair use” doctrine is not fixed and has been changed in favor of the copyright owners with time. Copyright violation is not as black and white as many people would like to think. Another example is that if you purchase a MP3 file you cannot freely download the same music in an audio format because of the resolution (quality) of the sound. It also implies that if you own a cassette tape you cannot freely download music in a digital format.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

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.”

It’s not a copyright violation to use something like TIVO or DVR or even the antiquated VCR to record a live broadcast to watch later for your private use. If you were to sell the recording or distribute it without permission that would be stealing.

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.

Blockbuster (at least where I live) gives alot of leeway on returning movies. There might be a very minimal additional rental charge for keeping the movie past it’s due date, if any. I’ve forgotten and kept movies for over a week before returning them with no additional fees. It would be better to pay any additional rental fees than to illegally record the movie. You make a contract or agreement when you rent movies to adhere to copyright laws. You are reminded of this contract at the start of the movie. There’s no excuse for violating your contract.

 

[puzzleannie]

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?
?

your opinion of a law, or of a Church teaching, carries little if any weight. the standard is gravity of the matter. downloading a song from time to time is probably a venial sin. pirating 100s of CDs and selling them for a big profit is probably a mortal sin.

 

[Michael96]

I’m not a professional musician, but playing music is an important part of my life. As such I can see the harm that is being done by the “victimless” crime of ripping music off someone elses CD or sharing MP3.

If you keep the music and enjoy it I’d really encorage you to go out and buy a copy yourself; especially if it’s an artist who doesn’t earn mega-bucks.

 

[Nepenthe]

This is an issue that particularly gets up my nose. How serious is copyright violation? Depends on how much $ and lawyers the other guy’s got, period. Many, heck, MOST independent musicians, filmmakers and so forth (and I know quite a few) are thrilled silly if you share and give away copies of their work!

The entire copyright system we have now is a plutocratic nightmare, with all sorts of ways for the big kids to beat up the little ones, even though it’s often the artists who don’t have the publicity-and-legal machine behind them who are actually creating the very best work.

Remember when copying and trading tapes around was simply ‘fair use?’ Now I can’t even legally own a movie and lend it my mom so she can check it out, for crying out loud. Until this insanity ends, yo ho ho, RIAA/MIAA.

This by no means we don’t give our all for the truly deserving - we buy tickets and attend shows, buy the swag and cd’s (usually from them personally, and often they just give them to us!) and pass the good word along for bands that have also rejected the current state of affairs. We even let them stay in our apartment now and then! But I wouldn’t give Paris Hilton the time of day if one of her fabulous diamond-encrusted watches popped a gear.

Besides, do you send money out everytime you sing ‘Happy Birthday?’ To be strictly legal, you’re supposed to! :whacky:

 

[S_V7]

your opinion of a law, or of a Church teaching, carries little if any weight. the standard is gravity of the matter. downloading a song from time to time is probably a venial sin. pirating 100s of CDs and selling them for a big profit is probably a mortal sin.

That’s what I was wondering. It did seem a bit ridiculous. Is there anything the Church says about this?

Would this be one of those “unreasonable” laws better left ignored?..reasonably speaking of course.

 

[Cristiano]

That’s what I was wondering. It did seem a bit ridiculous. Is there anything the Church says about this?

Would this be one of those “unreasonable” laws better left ignored?..reasonably speaking of course.

The Church talks of unjust laws as in “against natural law”. Copyright law is not against 'natural law"

 

[S_V7]

Here’s my reasoning, I’m no lawyer or moral theologist so please correct me if I’m wrong.

Copyright law says it’s illegal to do publicly play a movie without permission. Let’s say that a lisence costs $250. (from what I could tell, this price seems about right, but I may be wrong and I don’t know about the cost of a single permission) Let’s say a teacher owns a movie not covered by a school lisence and would like to show it to his class as a treat. If he shows this movie without permission, wouldn’t he be stealing those $250 or whatever the cost of the permission is?

and according to the mplc link, this teacher could be charged $150,000 for every time he shows it plus $750 to $30,000 for civil damages.

this to me seems ridiculous but I really don’t know:shrug:

Here’s what really concerns me. Our choir director, who is also a priest, makes many copies of music and lyrics for us and I doubt he has permission.

and this link says that the penalties for making unauthorized copies can range from $500 to $100,000 per infringment

:hypno:

again, I’m no lawyer or moral theologist so please correct me if I’m wrong, but all this seems unreasonable and if it’s true and valid, then from a moral view, violating copyright in this way would seems like* grave* matter.

 

[Firefox]

I have had an awful past few days. Besides my antibiotics causing me intestinal trouble, I’m now trying to grapple with copyright law. This is FAR worse.

I’ve been listening to some music downloaded from Amazon. Everybody is happy, because I paid for it.

So you would think.

I was double checking that my sister cannot put the music on her iPod, when it hit me. I bought the music using my mother’s account. Sure enough, the same thing that prevents my sister from listening to it actually prevents me from listening to it because it is, in fact, my mother’s. An email to Amazon confirmed it. So, now I’m all stressed out trying to look into justness of law, and I’m causing scandal (my mother is furious over the ridiculousness) by not listening to the music, since it appears to be indifferent to natural law, and I’m annoyed with the fact that the government defends this garbage, and my digestion is getting worse, and I’m about to start crying, and I’ve had a bad two days in one of my favorite online games, (Scammed and run out of my map by higher levels.) and it’s getting late, and I need to sleep, but I’m still in a Catch-22, held from sin only because avoiding a sin trumps scandal, and I just want to listen to the music which relaxes me (Luckily a chain going from my favorite artist to the videos on their site gives me a legal free way to listen to my favorite song)

Good night, all. Going to try to get some sleep. Maybe I can reduce my stress by picking a topic less stressful. Like how I’m going to college in August, 3 states away. [/end feeble joke attempt]

 

[jmcrae]

I have had an awful past few days. Besides my antibiotics causing me intestinal trouble, I’m now trying to grapple with copyright law. This is FAR worse.

I’ve been listening to some music downloaded from Amazon. Everybody is happy, because I paid for it.

So you would think.

I was double checking that my sister cannot put the music on her iPod, when it hit me. I bought the music using my mother’s account. Sure enough, the same thing that prevents my sister from listening to it actually prevents me from listening to it because it is, in fact, my mother’s. An email to Amazon confirmed it. So, now I’m all stressed out trying to look into justness of law, and I’m causing scandal (my mother is furious over the ridiculousness) by not listening to the music, since it appears to be indifferent to natural law, and I’m annoyed with the fact that the government defends this garbage, and my digestion is getting worse, and I’m about to start crying, and I’ve had a bad two days in one of my favorite online games, (Scammed and run out of my map by higher levels.) and it’s getting late, and I need to sleep, but I’m still in a Catch-22, held from sin only because avoiding a sin trumps scandal, and I just want to listen to the music which relaxes me (Luckily a chain going from my favorite artist to the videos on their site gives me a legal free way to listen to my favorite song)

Good night, all. Going to try to get some sleep. Maybe I can reduce my stress by picking a topic less stressful. Like how I’m going to college in August, 3 states away. [/end feeble joke attempt]

It was a gift from your mother to you, was it not? (Say “yes,” since obviously your mother gave permission for you to use her account, and it was on account of the fact that you are her child that she did so; thus, it is in fact a birthday present, in honour of the fact that you were born, and that she is your mother.)

Good luck with your college applications; my strategy at that age was to “take a year off” and do my college applications after I knew what my grades in high school were.

 

[S_V7]

Here’s my reasoning, I’m no lawyer or moral theologist so please correct me if I’m wrong.

Copyright law says it’s illegal to do publicly play a movie without permission. Let’s say that a lisence costs $250. (from what I could tell, this price seems about right, but I may be wrong and I don’t know about the cost of a single permission) Let’s say a teacher owns a movie not covered by a school lisence and would like to show it to his class as a treat. If he shows this movie without permission, wouldn’t he be stealing those $250 or whatever the cost of the permission is?

and according to the mplc link, this teacher could be charged $150,000 for every time he shows it plus $750 to $30,000 for civil damages.

this to me seems ridiculous but I really don’t know:shrug:

Here’s what really concerns me. Our choir director, who is also a priest, makes many copies of music and lyrics for us and I doubt he has permission.

and this link says that the penalties for making unauthorized copies can range from $500 to $100,000 per infringment

:hypno:

again, I’m no lawyer or moral theologist so please correct me if I’m wrong, but all this seems unreasonable and if it’s true and valid, then from a moral view, violating copyright in this way would seems like* grave* matter.

any comments?

 

[Brian_Millar]

One of my hobbies deals with RC aircraft, one of the prominent kit manufacturers takes a dim view on anybody copying their plans, even modifying them and building from them to resale the end product to the public, ie. the plane itself. I discussed this with the VP of the company that manufactures these, and he told me that as long as I was only building and copying the plans for personal use, that is perfectly OK, but I wasn’t allowed to resell any part of it to outside parties.

What this is saying, as long as you aren’t making a profit from it, as long as you aren’t using it in a manner where ordinarily you would have to pay for the equivelant, that it’s ok to copy something for personal use.

I had a past client when I was working in another field, he partner was a lawyer, he had some graphics taken from a celebrity to theme out some hit counters. I asked him about this element, he told me, his lawyer told him, as long as a profit is not being made, there are no infringements in the matter. He gave everything away from his site, it had no real commercial elements to it, for it was more his hobby then anything else.

If your concience is bothering you on this matter, ask the originator for permission to use what they have. The bottom line here being, as long as you aren’t cutting into their sales, they shouldn’t have an issue with it, take a case in point with the music downloads where people were sharing illegal copies of music, each copy should be paid for in full, or at least getting permission from the source before distribution. This is why we have freeware, shareware, and proprietary ware, in the software industry.

 

[S_V7]

One of my hobbies deals with RC aircraft, one of the prominent kit manufacturers takes a dim view on anybody copying their plans, even modifying them and building from them to resale the end product to the public, ie. the plane itself. I discussed this with the VP of the company that manufactures these, and he told me that as long as I was only building and copying the plans for personal use, that is perfectly OK, but I wasn’t allowed to resell any part of it to outside parties.

What this is saying, as long as you aren’t making a profit from it, as long as you aren’t using it in a manner where ordinarily you would have to pay for the equivelant, that it’s ok to copy something for personal use.

I had a past client when I was working in another field, he partner was a lawyer, he had some graphics taken from a celebrity to theme out some hit counters. I asked him about this element, he told me, his lawyer told him, as long as a profit is not being made, there are no infringements in the matter. He gave everything away from his site, it had no real commercial elements to it, for it was more his hobby then anything else.

If your concience is bothering you on this matter, ask the originator for permission to use what they have. The bottom line here being, as long as you aren’t cutting into their sales, they shouldn’t have an issue with it, take a case in point with the music downloads where people were sharing illegal copies of music, each copy should be paid for in full, or at least getting permission from the source before distribution. This is why we have freeware, shareware, and proprietary ware, in the software industry.

This is what i keep hearing, but it’s not what the law says and doesn’t the Bible say to submit to authority?

I’m just too confused. Our parish wants to put on that Lifehouse Everything skit (which is brilliant by the way:thumbsup: whoever wrote it…wow ) but there is so many copyright tangles and I think they’ve performed it several time without permission. Not to mention it’s probably illegal to watch it on GodTube so I’m doing the best I can to resist. It’s just so awesome!

But then there’s that voice yelling “copyright infringment!!”

 

[Brian_Millar]

Well, bottom line, if in doubt, ask who ever created it in the first place. Once that individual gives you permission, it makes what ever law’s that are in place obsolute, it amends them for your particular application. Remember, the guy with his hobby web site had a lawyer, so he was learned in these matters, I did question him on it, and he explained it to me that way.

 

[Ted_in_Charlott]

As an amateur photographer, I take pictures that have had some exposure on a very famous photography website. A couple of them have been published. Some of the material I have taken has been very good, most very amateurist. A good photograph is a combination of very good equipment and time not only to take the shot in question, but through experimenting, hundreds of shots and hours of time. A very good photograph is the above

I have had some material that has been published and I was very proud of that material. It is so easy for someone just to lift one of my photos and use it for their own personal use, whether for immediate monetary gain or not. I am sure it has happened to me, so I am someone more sensitive to the issue than most.

If you take a piece of my work without my permission, it is theft.

However, if you just wrote me a note and said I like your picture may I please download a single copy so I can hang it on my wall, I probably would say let me send you one and I will autograph it and I would be highly flattered. It is more about the taking without permission, which is part of the copyright and all rights reserved issue.

 

[down_under]

I garentee you everyone on this site at one time or another has broken one of these silly copyrite laws. they are too loopy for you to even understand them all. copyrite is a joke. you cannot live your life and follow them all. And the system promises to get more confused and regulated not clearer. I would say you have broken copyrite about as often as you have broken the tax laws. and trust me you HAVE broken the tax laws. even if someone prepaired them for you. no one knows ALL the tax laws not even the lawyers. Although I think it is possible that copyrite is more convoluted and confusing than even tax law.

 

[Cristiano]

I garentee you everyone on this site at one time or another has broken one of these silly copyrite laws. they are too loopy for you to even understand them all. copyrite is a joke. you cannot live your life and follow them all. And the system promises to get more confused and regulated not clearer. I would say you have broken copyrite about as often as you have broken the tax laws. and trust me you HAVE broken the tax laws. even if someone prepaired them for you. no one knows ALL the tax laws not even the lawyers. Although I think it is possible that copyrite is more convoluted and confusing than even tax law.

And your point is?