Watching videos online, could it be sinful?

[CatholicRoots]

I’ve asked something fairly similar before but I just wanted to ask again because i’m still unsure and wanted others opinions that I might possibly be put at ease. I like documentaries so I sometimes wacth full length ones on youtube, is there anything sinful or unlawful in this? The reason I wonder is because if these documentaries could be purchased (though many probably can’t be) and instead I watch them on youtube, then aren’t I depriving them (documentary producers etc…) of money? additionally though documentaries are on the TV so it doesn’t seem like such a big deal we pay for our tv sets but also the channels themselves in TV tax etc… so the shows are still funded directly or indirectly. What is your opinion, would you consider it a sin? what would the churches stance be? Thanks in advance for any replies.

 

[Joe_5859]

Watching a video online is a morally neutral act. Just like watching a video on TV.

It all comes down to who has the rights and what permission has been granted. If someone wants to make a video available for free on YouTube that they also sell on DVD on their website, you are not sinning by watching it on YouTube because they chose to make it available in more than one way.

One of my favorite bands releases a Christmas song every year and they post a link on their website that registered users can access. They also make it available for purchase in iTunes. That doesn’t mean I’m “stealing” by making use of the free download. That’s because they offered it.

If you’re talking about a video posted by an unknown third party, you might want to investigate. You could try contacting the makers of the video. In general, I would think that if they didn’t want the video on YouTube, they’d let YouTube know and it would be taken down.

 

[dshix]

I’ve asked something fairly similar before but I just wanted to ask again because i’m still unsure and wanted others opinions that I might possibly be put at ease. I like documentaries so I sometimes wacth full length ones on youtube, is there anything sinful or unlawful in this? The reason I wonder is because if these documentaries could be purchased (though many probably can’t be) and instead I watch them on youtube, then aren’t I depriving them (documentary producers etc…) of money? additionally though documentaries are on the TV so it doesn’t seem like such a big deal we pay for our tv sets but also the channels themselves in TV tax etc… so the shows are still funded directly or indirectly. What is your opinion, would you consider it a sin? what would the churches stance be? Thanks in advance for any replies.

If they are on youtube, I think you have a pretty reliable assurance that they have been checked so they are not violating any copyrights or anything. And if they are, and youtube hasn’t figured it out yet, it’s not your fault.

I’m not absolutely sure though, so if anyone knows better correct me.

 

[sepgs2004]

If you are going to be making money out of the youtube watching in any way directly or indirectly, may be I would consider purchasing just those videos.
If the videos are against or would disturb our walk towards heaven, then one should not watch at all regardless of where it is.

It is like St. Paul saying in one of the verses: If a food is offered to some false gods or demons, and if you are not aware of it, just eat it praising our God, because everything is from God. If you are aware and you are strong, then be attentive or cautious, so that you do not want to become a bad model. Yours might be little analogous to this situation St. Paul mentioning 1 Corinthians 8

Wishes

 

[trk1]

There are certainly lots of ways to cheat copyright laws online now, and you can pretty much watch any video if you know where to go. Basically, we should follow the law even if it is frustratingly arbitrary. Take underage drinking for example. 21 is an arbitrary age, but we should still “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” and follow the law.
You don’t need moral theology to figure out the answer. If it’s legal, it’s fine.

 

[Jaaanosik]

OP, what you essentially do is time-shifting and space/place-shifting.

Time-shifting is OK. It belongs under ‘fair use’ - court case back in 80’s.

The major legal issue involved in time shifting concerns “fair use” law and the possibility of copyright infringement.[1] This legal issue is first raised in the landmark court case of Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. or the “Betamax case”.[2] In 1979, Universal sued Sony, claiming its timed recording capability amounted to copyright infringement.

Sony argued that the advent of its Betamax video recorder in 1976 did not violate the copyright of the owners of shows which the device recorded. A district court found that noncommercial home use recording was considered fair use and ruled in favor of Sony. In appeals, the United States Court of Appeals reversed this decision in 1981 giving the edge to Universal, but the Supreme Court of the United States reversed it yet again in 1984, and found in favor of Sony 5–4. The majority decision held that time shifting was a fair use, represented no substantial harm to the copyright holder and would not contribute to a diminished marketplace for its product.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_shifting

Space-shifting was not at a trial yet. I guess it would end up in a similar way, but who knows.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shifting

I would not worry about it.

 

[Joe_5859]

OP, what you essentially do is time-shifting and space/place-shifting.

Time-shifting is OK. It belongs under ‘fair use’ - court case back in 80’s.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_shifting

Space-shifting was not at a trial yet. I guess it would end up in a similar way, but who knows.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shifting

I would not worry about it.

Thanks for those two terms. That helps me conceptualize things. I wonder how the case would turn out now if the whole “time shifting” thing hadn’t been settled in the 80s. With the advent of digital recorders and redistribution, I can imagine it being a much different type of case.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Thanks for those two terms. That helps me conceptualize things. I wonder how the case would turn out now if the whole “time shifting” thing hadn’t been settled in the 80s. With the advent of digital recorders and redistribution, I can imagine it being a much different type of case.

Time-shifting was settled:

but the Supreme Court of the United States reversed it yet again in 1984, and found in favor of Sony 5–4. The majority decision held that** time shifting was a fair use, represented no substantial harm to the copyright holder and would not contribute to a diminished marketplace for its product.**

 

[CatholicRoots]

OP, what you essentially do is time-shifting and space/place-shifting.

Time-shifting is OK. It belongs under ‘fair use’ - court case back in 80’s.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_shifting

Space-shifting was not at a trial yet. I guess it would end up in a similar way, but who knows.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shifting

I would not worry about it.

I may be being a bit slow here but I don’t fully understand what that means. Does that mean for private use with no commercial intentions one may view shows or in my case documentaries? Sorry, I haven’t grasped it. Thanks for your reply though, it was informative. Thanks for all the other responses as well. As regards the sin front, what are your personal opinions on the nature of it? Since Jaaanosik has provided us with an answer, once i’ve understood it, from the legal perspective.