Illicit duplication of copyrighted DVDs and CDs

[edwest2]

Even the FBI will tell you not to do it even if there is no monetary gain. The equation is simple:

Creators, to varying degrees, invest a lot of talent, time and money to get their work out there. Those with employees, even a handful, plus freelancers, need the money. The head of a comic book publishing company wrote in a trade article, that piracy does reduce revenues. He said, “If I can’t afford to pay my writers and artists then I will have to take action.” Action that he didn’t want to take.

Off topic but: Who is forcing anyone to buy foreign cars?

Back to the topic. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act has a Safe Harbor provision. That means if you’re a big site like youtube, when you get contacted by the copyright owner, you are required to take the infringing material down. What Safe Harbor means is that those who understand the law are required to abide by it. Even though Jt_7eRT reuploads the same infringing material a few weeks later. That way, such companies avoid getting sued. They are in a Safe Harbor because they didn’t know a TV show/self-produced video by a large or small company is on their site.

Ed

 

[joeybaggz]

But violating that license doesn’t mean you are stealing. It just means you are ignoring the law that gives a monopoly to a particular person. The act does not in any way deprive the person of his property. You could at best say it deprives them of whatever they would sell the license for. But this still isn’t stealing since the person is not already in possession of this. You could say it deprives them of the exclusive right to completely control the property but the property in question is an idea. It isn’t a physical thing. Can someone own an idea? IP says as much but I’m not sure they can or that it is just to allow them to. For instance, would anyone think it just for a man to be able to own the question mark?

The contents of my novel is Intellectual Property. Someone who copies and downloads and distributes my work, denies me the revenues needed to pay for the production of the novel and its distribution. My last novel cost me approximately $6,500.00 to produce and that doesn’t count the six months of labor writing it (even at minimum wage)

You are right that an idea cannot be copyrighted and maybe your post meant only this, but intellectual property such as a song or a novel is an idea put into concrete form. Songs used in church are used by permission by the owner, it is a legal transaction. However, a song like Elton John’s “Healing Hands” or Josh Groban’s "You Raise Me UP’ which could well be pertinent to worship (although probably not in a Catholic Mass Service) would need explicit permission to be used. Why, because any good lawyer would cite the fact that a collection is taken up, that the mass or service is a commercial entity where money changes hands, and the use of a song contributes to the revenue stream. The owner wants his piece of the action, and like I said before, this is why the lawyers get the big money.

Shalom

 

[Bonnie]

I meant a rolling stop when there is no one around.

And are you suggesting that the bus driver, who very well may have made a mistake, is guilty of sin for the accident? Does every person involved in a wreck and was in the wrong need confession?

In this case, yes. I reread the article about the accident & the bus driver went thru a stop sign because there had been a detour for the past week due to flooding. Instead of finding out if the highway was reopened, she just assumed it wasn’t & that the semi would turn. Detour or not, she was still supposed to stop. Last week, I almost got hit at the other end of that detour because someone decided he didn’t have to stop - he made the assumption there would be no cross traffic, forgetting there was another road on the other side of the highway.

 

[edwest2]

But Media Mail isn’t just for the creators of said media. I used to sell & often buy 2nd hand books & movies that are sent by Media Mail.

The difference between loaning, renting, buying, or selling a 2nd hand book, movie, or cd and COPYING that material is just that - copying. You’re not allowed to do that, especially if you’re giving or selling it to others. The gray area (in my opinion only) is when I borrow a movie from the library & copy it to my computer to watch later. It doesn’t go beyond me & often I will delete the dvd later. (One reason I do this is that dvds loans are only good for a week - sometimes I don’t have time to watch during that week.)

Technology has surged ahead of theology or moral law (don’t know what this falls under), so the Church has some catching up to do. In the meantime, we muddle along as best we can.

Your last comment is not true. Moral law is moral law. Sure, you are allowed to put a bunch of stuff on your DVR. The key word is allowed.

The Church has no catching up to do. It has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences. When movies became widely available, it told Catholics and all men of good will, including people from Hollywood, about what they should do.

The Church doesn’t muddle. It examines the issues and publishes letters/encyclicals to provide guidance to the faithful.

Ed

 

[Bonnie]

The Church doesn’t muddle. It examines the issues and publishes letters/encyclicals to provide guidance to the faithful.
Ed

I didn’t say the Church muddles, but I certainly do. I was not aware of anything from the Vatican about copying dvds or cds. Could you direct me to them?

 

[edwest2]

The contents of my novel is Intellectual Property. Someone who copies and downloads and distributes my work, denies me the revenues needed to pay for the production of the novel and its distribution. My last novel cost me approximately $6,500.00 to produce and that doesn’t count the six months of labor writing it (even at minimum wage)

You are right that an idea cannot be copyrighted and maybe your post meant only this, but intellectual property such as a song or a novel is an idea put into concrete form. Songs used in church are used by permission by the owner, it is a legal transaction. However, a song like Elton John’s “Healing Hands” or Josh Groban’s "You Raise Me UP’ which could well be pertinent to worship (although probably not in a Catholic Mass Service) would need explicit permission to be used. Why, because any good lawyer would cite the fact that a collection is taken up, that the mass or service is a commercial entity where money changes hands, and the use of a song contributes to the revenue stream. The owner wants his piece of the action, and like I said before, this is why the lawyers get the big money.

Shalom

You’re right, ideas like time travel or space travel or even dimensional travel, cannot be copyrighted. Robots or androids? Same thing. You can create your own super being with his own powers, look and costume, and no one one else can copy it. For example, you can’t start publishing your own Superman comic book or novel.

Ed

 

[exnihilo]

The contents of my novel is Intellectual Property. Someone who copies and downloads and distributes my work, denies me the revenues needed to pay for the production of the novel and its distribution. My last novel cost me approximately $6,500.00 to produce and that doesn’t count the six months of labor writing it (even at minimum wage)

You are right that an idea cannot be copyrighted and maybe your post meant only this, but intellectual property such as a song or a novel is an idea put into concrete form. Songs used in church are used by permission by the owner, it is a legal transaction. However, a song like Elton John’s “Healing Hands” or Josh Groban’s "You Raise Me UP’ which could well be pertinent to worship (although probably not in a Catholic Mass Service) would need explicit permission to be used. Why, because any good lawyer would cite the fact that a collection is taken up, that the mass or service is a commercial entity where money changes hands, and the use of a song contributes to the revenue stream. The owner wants his piece of the action, and like I said before, this is why the lawyers get the big money.

No, I’m saying all IP is about giving monopoly rights for an idea. The idea may be a punctuation mark, a certain string of words, a way of building an object, a string of notes etc.

Actually I’m pretty sure copyright law gives a performance exemption for religious events. All copyrighted material is covered under the exemption. You are right that lawyers can and will poke holes in that.

 

[joeybaggz]

No, I’m saying all IP is about giving monopoly rights for an idea. The idea may be a punctuation mark, a certain string of words, a way of building an object, a string of notes etc.

Actually I’m pretty sure copyright law gives a performance exemption for religious events. All copyrighted material is covered under the exemption. You are right that lawyers can and will poke holes in that.

You are right, no one can own a copyright on an idea. No disagreement from this quarter. It is when people “extend” that argument that the contents of a work is simply an idea put in concrete form that I have to disagree.

As to performance exception for religious events, I don’t really know. If I were one of the two performers I cited in a previous post, I wouldn’t mind and would give permission because it is possible that members of the congregation might want to purchase a copy or cd of my work. That would be fine with me.

Shalom

 

[edwest2]

No, I’m saying all IP is about giving monopoly rights for an idea. The idea may be a punctuation mark, a certain string of words, a way of building an object, a string of notes etc.

Actually I’m pretty sure copyright law gives a performance exemption for religious events. All copyrighted material is covered under the exemption. You are right that lawyers can and will poke holes in that.

Contact the US Conference of Catholic Bishops about that. I did when someone asked if a certain symbolic piece of art was under copyright. They directed me to a site that showed it clearly was. What’s wrong with giving somebody rights to their own work? I recall a lawsuit against a performer who had “sampled” part of somebody else’s work and put it in one of his songs.

Lawyers know. Most creators do not know all the details. That’s why we consult lawyers, especially about IP issues and contracts. Too often, contracts are written in something that reads just like English, but includes words and phrases that are easily misunderstood. It would be good if creators contacted a lawyer to explain what any contract means.

I could give examples but I’m not a lawyer.

Ed

 

[exnihilo]

What’s wrong with giving somebody rights to their own work? I recall a lawsuit against a performer who had “sampled” part of somebody else’s work and put it in one of his songs.

The problem is when the work is an idea. I think for me it is most clear in cases like ‘sampling’. Here you are just using a portion of the other work (a string of musical notes) but making a new creation. Another problem is that the system is completely arbitrary. They’ve been expanding it for centuries now. The idea that I can’t copy the words of G. K. Chesterton who died long before I was born (and I’m not young) seems absurd. Why not make every idea protectable forever? I do have some sympathy to some IP but find the bulk of it very unjust.

 

[edwest2]

The problem is when the work is an idea. I think for me it is most clear in cases like ‘sampling’. Here you are just using a portion of the other work (a string of musical notes) but making a new creation. Another problem is that the system is completely arbitrary. They’ve been expanding it for centuries now. The idea that I can’t copy the words of G. K. Chesterton who died long before I was born (and I’m not young) seems absurd. Why not make every idea protectable forever? I do have some sympathy to some IP but find the bulk of it very unjust.

Unjust? How? I’ve seen old movies with the words “copyright renewed” on the package. Expanding it for Centuries? The US hasn’t been around that long. I’ve had copyright law explained to me in great detail, especially in the case of conditions of ownership. I don’t care if anyone can, under the law, keep his monopoly for 75 years or longer.

Some people - speaking generally - are those who take the time and effort to reprint books when the copyright has expired. They haven’t created anything, but they’re making money off of it. I’ve been blessed to work with a company where new ideas are created on a regular basis. This is professional work that took years to perfect. And during that time, we had to pay our bills, and our freelancers, and in-house staff.

The great joy has been knowing how many people we’ve entertained over the years while still keeping our books ‘family friendly.’ It’s hard and rewarding. No, we’re not perfect, but we set goals and do our best to make things happen. We are also blessed by an artist who just keeps improving under the direction of our head Art Director. He asked for my thoughts on the latest cover he’s working on. Now, if anybody could just pick up a graphics tablet and do the level of quality he’s doing in a few months or a few years - that’s what people are paying for. That’s why he gets paid.

Regarding older works remaining under copyright after the author has died, all you need is a contract/will that reads: “All rights to the author’s work will now transfer to his estate, heirs or assigns in that order.” Or similar. Having worked with lawyers and reviewed contracts myself, nothing is arbitrary.

Ed

 

[exnihilo]

Unjust? How? I’ve seen old movies with the words “copyright renewed” on the package. Expanding it for Centuries? The US hasn’t been around that long. I’ve had copyright law explained to me in great detail, especially in the case of conditions of ownership. I don’t care if anyone can, under the law, keep his monopoly for 75 years or longer.

Some people - speaking generally - are those who take the time and effort to reprint books when the copyright has expired. They haven’t created anything, but they’re making money off of it. I’ve been blessed to work with a company where new ideas are created on a regular basis. This is professional work that took years to perfect. And during that time, we had to pay our bills, and our freelancers, and in-house staff.

The great joy has been knowing how many people we’ve entertained over the years while still keeping our books ‘family friendly.’ It’s hard and rewarding. No, we’re not perfect, but we set goals and do our best to make things happen. We are also blessed by an artist who just keeps improving under the direction of our head Art Director. He asked for my thoughts on the latest cover he’s working on. Now, if anybody could just pick up a graphics tablet and do the level of quality he’s doing in a few months or a few years - that’s what people are paying for. That’s why he gets paid.

Regarding older works remaining under copyright after the author has died, all you need is a contract/will that reads: “All rights to the author’s work will now transfer to his estate, heirs or assigns in that order.” Or similar. Having worked with lawyers and reviewed contracts myself, nothing is arbitrary.

Ed

Copyright started in the U.K. a long time ago. The US has been around for over two centuries.

The arbitrariness is in the length of copyright. Why not 1 year, or 7, 14, 75, 120 or 3,000 years? What length of time is preventing stealing from someone and what length is not?

Copyright can actually keep people from enjoying your work. One reason Charles Dickens was so popular in the US is that US printers weren’t subject to the copyright. The opposite was true for Edgar Allan Poe in England. That doesn’t mean I’m not sympathetic to creators of work being fairly compensated.

 

[edwest2]

Copyright started in the U.K. a long time ago. The US has been around for over two centuries.

The arbitrariness is in the length of copyright. Why not 1 year, or 7, 14, 75, 120 or 3,000 years? What length of time is preventing stealing from someone and what length is not?

Copyright can actually keep people from enjoying your work. One reason Charles Dickens was so popular in the US is that US printers weren’t subject to the copyright. The opposite was true for Edgar Allan Poe in England. That doesn’t mean I’m not sympathetic to creators of work being fairly compensated.

That’s a question for lawmakers. Public libraries were established in the US so that anyone, rich or poor, can read a book right there or take it home on loan.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_libraries_in_North_America

Ed

 

[joeybaggz]

Copyright started in the U.K. a long time ago. The US has been around for over two centuries.

The arbitrariness is in the length of copyright. Why not 1 year, or 7, 14, 75, 120 or 3,000 years? What length of time is preventing stealing from someone and what length is not?

Copyright can actually keep people from enjoying your work. One reason Charles Dickens was so popular in the US is that US printers weren’t subject to the copyright. The opposite was true for Edgar Allan Poe in England. That doesn’t mean I’m not sympathetic to creators of work being fairly compensated.

Actually, I do agree that the length of copyright after death of author/original copyright holder is a bit long. I would think it could be shortened. And I don’t think you are unsympathetic to creators as to compensation.

The flip side of your statement about the works of Poe/Dickens is this. Say I wrote a novel about abc and 100,000 people read it. But only 500 bought it. I lost my shirt on writing and producing this novel. Now, assume that 10,000 people who read it, found it inspirational to the point that it changed their lives for the better. Now someone comes to me saying you are talented that you should write a novel about xyz You could change thousands of lives for the better with your skill and talent.

My answer, I lost six months of my life and $5,000.00 of my money writing the first novel. Why should I do it again? And if I don’t, are those 10,000 people losing something that would make their lives immensely better. By stealing my original work, who is harmed more down the road?

This is what so many (and I’m not necessarily including you in this group) don’t get about “intellectual property” Why create art, beauty, or inspiration if I’m going to end on the curb with my belongings because the landlord and the bankruptcy court took everything because I didn’t make enough on my work to pay my bills ?

Just sayin’ My:twocents:

 

[randomuser]

The problem is when the work is an idea. I think for me it is most clear in cases like ‘sampling’. Here you are just using a portion of the other work (a string of musical notes) but making a new creation. Another problem is that the system is completely arbitrary. They’ve been expanding it for centuries now. The idea that I can’t copy the words of G. K. Chesterton who died long before I was born (and I’m not young) seems absurd. Why not make every idea protectable forever? I do have some sympathy to some IP but find the bulk of it very unjust.

Sampling is pretty much SETTLED case law as long as it’s “fair use.” Otherwise, Girl Talk would be in prison by now. For those who don’t who/what I’m referring to:

Girl Talk, whose real name is Gregg Gillis, makes danceable musical collages out of short clips from other people’s songs; there are more than 300 samples on “Feed the Animals,” the album he released online at illegalart.net in June.** He doesn’t get the permission of the composers to use these samples, as United States copyright law mostly requires, because he maintains that the brief snippets he works with are covered by copyright law’s “fair use” principle (and perhaps because doing so would be prohibitively expensive).*** [emphasis added]

Girl Talk’s rising profile has put him at the forefront of a group of musicians who are challenging the traditional restrictions of copyright law along with the usual role of samples in pop music. Although artists like the Belgian duo 2 Many DJs have been making “mash-ups” out of existing songs for years, Girl Talk is taking this genre to a mainstream audience with raucous performances that often end with his shirt off and much of the audience onstage.*
nytimes.com/2008/08/07/arts/music/07girl.html

Based upon what I’m seeing in this thread, is it sinful to download one of Girl Talk’s CD since he didn’t get clearance on every one of his samples? And that it’s sinful - and - stealing to make ‘mash-ups’ (remixes of two or more songs by different artists)?

 

[CatholicSpirit]

This is where I lose respect for those obsessed with “for profit” materials like “Gods Not Dead” and other such things. If it was really about Evangelizing, same with their music industry, it would be “COPYLEFT.” Look it up. They profit and are not Saints.

I’m not telling you to steal, question is: if you have tools to duplicate God is Not Dead 1&2, Passion of the Christ, Noah, the 10 Commandments, and the Bible TV Series, it’s going to have to be based on your reasoning. They copyrighted the audiobible too, before they become copyright nazis they should determine it’s origins.

 

[Tim_D]

Why create art, beauty, or inspiration if I’m going to end on the curb with my belongings because the landlord and the bankruptcy court took everything because I didn’t make enough on my work to pay my bills ?

Michaelangelo was constantly destitute yet continued to produce his work. Why? Because he was an artist and that was where his passion lay.

No one sits down to create art to become rich. Monetary prosperity for art is a perk that few artists achieve.

I remember Billy Joel saying that he knew guys who wanted to be musicians but wanted to get a degree “just in case.” As he said, if that is your thinking, then you probably aren’t an artist.

 

[pnewton]

If a particular owner of a material intends for their product to be available for lending in the case of libraries, then of course this is not stealing.

But if that same owner does NOT intend for private individuals to lend out things, then it is stealing.

As an author and publisher, the library purchased my book. It was a legal sale for which I have been compensated honestly. I know the library will lend the book, and by selling it to the library, I agree to that condition. No one stole anything, not the library, and not the people who borrow it and read it.

Authors of intellectual property do** not **get to decide what is and is not theft. Libraries can lend books even if the author hates it. In the United States, fair use is decided by the courts and not the plaintiff. No one is going to win a suit over a loan of a book or a CD.

Copyright laws are important to encouraging creative people to produce product. However, it is my opinion that the current laws are so generous that they discourage creativity by restricting creative product from being expanded on for an excessive length of time. Patents need expiration dates. Copyright should have a similar length of time for the good of the culture of a people. That is just my opinion.

As to the OP, years ago, I did something similar what your friend does. The difference was that I received permission from the people who owned the religious material and only purchase materials from them to copy and distribute, allowing those that wanted to make the money make it from someone else. In this day and age, there is so much free material one can have a ministry via freely shared material.

 

[exnihilo]

This is what so many (and I’m not necessarily including you in this group) don’t get about “intellectual property” Why create art, beauty, or inspiration if I’m going to end on the curb with my belongings because the landlord and the bankruptcy court took everything because I didn’t make enough on my work to pay my bills ?

I agree this is an issue. One thing I’d point out is that plenty of software is created these days that is completely free. The coders face the same issue of how do they live when they are working to produce a free product. There may well be differences between programming and other fields but it is nonetheless interesting to consider.

Copyright laws are important to encouraging creative people to produce product. **However, it is my opinion that the current laws are so generous that they discourage creativity by restricting creative product from being expanded on for an excessive length of time. ** Patents need expiration dates. Copyright should have a similar length of time for the good of the culture of a people. That is just my opinion.

 

[edwest2]

I agree this is an issue. One thing I’d point out is that plenty of software is created these days that is completely free. The coders face the same issue of how do they live when they are working to produce a free product. There may well be differences between programming and other fields but it is nonetheless interesting to consider.

“good of the culture”? That doesn’t make any sense, and speaking generally, appears to say: “Oh boy! The copyright for Bob the Flying Horse has expired! So I’m going to make my BTFH shirts and books and movies! And money!”

Sad. Create your (referring to no one in particular) own work. Your own IPs. My company has licensed or become the licensee for another IP. In the real world, ideas are a dime a dozen. The ability to produce quality writing and illustration that people will buy takes years to perfect. And yes, I know artists who make a living off their work. It’s called commercial art. It’s not free. Our company has been in business a long time. That’s how I make my living.

Ed