Is Youtube use Immoral?

[Wowbagger]

If a video has been posted in violation of copyright laws and you’re watching that video…you too are in violation of copyright laws.

Technically, Zatzat, by quoting the post above you without explicit written permission, you’re in violation of copyright laws. It’s simply an unenforced law. “Fair Use” provisions muddy the waters a bit here – but only a bit. You quoted the earlier post (copyrighted, per the Berne Convention) in its entirety, which is one strike against you, and the case law on internet forum commentary just isn’t very substantial, so you’ve got no precedent on your side. If Joe5889 decided to sue you, he could win. It’s all that likely, because judges still have some common sense, but if you got a very nitpicky judge who stuck to the letter of the law and was not unreasonably ingenerous with the fair use provisions, you could easily owe Joe something on the order of $30,000.

But you don’t, because it’s American copyright law is not only unenforced in many places, but it is nearly impossible to obey it. Aquinas himself concurred that a law that was unenforced (or by its nature unenforceable) had no binding force. I’m not suggesting that you can go around downloading thousands of movies for free, but I am certainly suggesting that there is a great deal of gray space around the edges, where Catholics can only make prudential judgments, rather than your categorical claims.

Indeed, it seems to me that YouTube goes quite a bit beyond what it is morally obligated to do, scrubbing not only every kind of copyrighted content, but also scrubbing off items which would clearly fall under fair use, and even totally uncopyrighted material, invariably without giving the affected users warning or the opportunity for protest. If anything, it should be protested against for shutting down the innocent as part of an overzealous anti-piracy policy. Certainly, it does far more than Aquinas would demand of it.

And, incidentally, it is not illegal to stream or even obtain an illegal copy of copyrighted material under American law. It is illegal to make or distribute such copies. So, no, in no sense whatsoever are YouTube viewers violating copyright law.

However, by quoting Joe in your post without his written consent, you might be, Zatzat.

Ironic, yes?

DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer. Also, I’m in a crummy mood and I’m trying not to take it out on the forumgoers here, but I’m not sure how well I’m succeeding.

 

[The_Reginator]

AC/DC???Now that’s a crime aginst music

 

[presidentjlh]

lol, what’s with the Acca Dacca hate?

 

[Richardprins]

But you don’t, because it’s American copyright law is not only unenforced in many places, but it is nearly impossible to obey it. Aquinas himself concurred that a law that was unenforced (or by its nature unenforceable) had no binding force. I’m not suggesting that you can go around downloading thousands of movies for free, but I am certainly suggesting that there is a great deal of gray space around the edges, where Catholics can only make prudential judgments, rather than your categorical claims.

Is this true? This would be very interesting, especially in the Netherlands where the authorities are extremely lax. It’s ridiculous that the law prohibits me from making a back-up of my dvd, for example. This is, as far as I can tell, completely unenforced here. I’d like to be able to see the movies I bought on my iPod for example

 

[shondrea]

So are you saying videos that are the original videos of a song are most likely on YouTube legally??

Some are, some aren’t. If you see an advertisement on the page, taking up most of the right side of the page, it’s an indicator that the artist or company has allowed for the use of the song. Other companies will not do that. WGM is notorious for this. A video containing a WGM company song often won’t be on Youtube for long anyway.

 

[crazzeto]

You should not consume or distrubt content illegally… So basically, if you’re watching feature length movies on youtube, then seriously… What difference is this from just downloading it illegally?

On the other hand, if your watching songs or concerts you love which were uploaded by the original artist, then certainly there is nothing immoral here. Or if you’re watching content which you are sure has been uploaded with authority then that’s fine.

Then certainly there is a grey area, some of which was posted by posters here already. Old concerts uploaded for instance, which have never been contested… I would say do some home work, it some cases you can figure it out quickly. For instance if you know that content to be available for sale (like old concerts), and it wasn’t uploaded by the band, then it might be safe to assume it is not there with consent.

Some other matieral is gray which I have less misgivings about, for instance those 10+ minute clips of 80’s commercials. Technically this is copywrited, but by and large this content isn’t available for sale, more over many of the advertised brands (and in some cases exact products) still exist and the ads still serve their purpose, while offering the viewer that warm fuzzy feeling of nostolgia.

 

[Richardprins]

Some are, some aren’t. If you see an advertisement on the page, taking up most of the right side of the page, it’s an indicator that the artist or company has allowed for the use of the song. Other companies will not do that. WGM is notorious for this. A video containing a WGM company song often won’t be on Youtube for long anyway.

Recently there’s lawsuit between I think Viacom and Google. Viacom accused google (owner of youtube) of copyright infringement trough Youtube. Then Google made a pretty interesting claim: Viacom (and presumably other companies as well) has on various occasions uploaded their own material through unofficial channels (Indistinguishable from e.g. JackTheRipper1231), and they have even on certain occasion flagged those videos as violations. So that makes it even harder to know if it’s an illegally posted vid.

I also found this:
jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/08/poker_legamoron.html on the validity of unenforced laws.

 

[The_Reginator]

lol, what’s with the Acca Dacca hate?

AC/DC, Kiss, Donna Summer, … same difference – all crimes against music.

 

[lutherlic]

First of all, I suggest that legality and morality are two independent topics. Abortion is completely legal in many cases.

Secondly, few of us here (including me) are experts in copyright law. It is also a complex and somewhat of a moving target.

Many things on YouTube appear to me to be at least in the spirit of fair use.

 

[The_Catholic]

I hate the comments on Youtube. everyone is always cursing, insulting and fighting over the most ridiculous things, and I mean it seems to fill about 80% of youtube! Blah!

 

[L_Ron_Hubbub]

I hate the comments on Youtube. everyone is always cursing, insulting and fighting over the most ridiculous things, and I mean it seems to fill about 80% of youtube! Blah!

Not everyone. Not always. Here is a link to my solo instrumental arrangement of the old school hymn Oh Lord I Am Not Worthy. There is good on the Internets

 

[curlycool89]

Secondly, few of us here (including me) are experts in copyright law. It is also a complex and somewhat of a moving target.

I think the key word here is “complex”. At least us non-lawyer types can understand most regular laws. Copyright law is just plain unintelligible to non-lawyers.

Throw in some differences between countries. From what I’ve read, the law here in Canada is so ambiguous that file sharing music may or may not be legal (moral issues aside of course). There’s also the part where they keep changing the copyright length (what is it, author’s life + 70 years now or something? It looks like it was originally 28 years), which will most likely just end up being “almost” forever (I think the only thing prohibited is “indefinitely”).

It’s complicated just from a legal standpoint.

 

[lutherlic]

I think the key word here is “complex”. At least us non-lawyer types can understand most regular laws. Copyright law is just plain unintelligible to non-lawyers.

Throw in some differences between countries. From what I’ve read, the law here in Canada is so ambiguous that file sharing music may or may not be legal (moral issues aside of course). There’s also the part where they keep changing the copyright length (what is it, author’s life + 70 years now or something? It looks like it was originally 28 years), which will most likely just end up being “almost” forever (I think the only thing prohibited is “indefinitely”).

It’s complicated just from a legal standpoint.

Good point. The original intention of copyright as a temporary benefit for the author with the work then going for the public good, has been lost. I have heard that the copyright law is always extended every time Disney’s treasured copyrights are about to expire.

I don’t want to go too far off topic, but it seems to me that all copyrighted works should be subject to the copyright laws at the time they were created (not subsequent revisions made for their benefit).

 

[Joe_5859]

First of all, I suggest that legality and morality are two independent topics. Abortion is completely legal in many cases.

Secondly, few of us here (including me) are experts in copyright law. It is also a complex and somewhat of a moving target.

Many things on YouTube appear to me to be at least in the spirit of fair use.

Excellent points. I am skeptical when people start speaking in terms of absolutes regarding copyright law as it seems so nebulous to me. Especially since most YouTube videos are 10 minutes or less per their posting restrictions. You can’t sit down and watch an entire movie on YouTube.

Good point. The original intention of copyright as a temporary benefit for the author with the work then going for the public good, has been lost. I have heard that the copyright law is always extended every time Disney’s treasured copyrights are about to expire.

I’ve heard that, too. It looks like Disney has until December 2036 before Mickey and friends enter the public domain. That is, if copyright laws haven’t changed again by then. Which seems ironic since many of the characters that bring Disney so much money are characters they themselves took from the public domain.

 

[curlycool89]

Good point. The original intention of copyright as a temporary benefit for the author with the work then going for the public good, has been lost. I have heard that the copyright law is always extended every time Disney’s treasured copyrights are about to expire.

As my economics prof explained to us, this is why you have Bambi 1, Bambi 2, Banbi Again, etc.

I would love it if someone would give us a good guide on morality and copyright law, because originally the idea of copyright was to allow the creator a short monopoly on their idea, and then it would pass into the public domain. So whenever that was, I would say that then you could use that now public domain property morally.