K
King_Louis_IX
Guest
But the question remains: Are we supporting illegal activity by watching the videos? Is it immoral in this instance?
- Status
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Patrick McKay did not comment about that in the email to me. I want to know the answer to your question, maybe you could ask in ‘As an apologist’
V
vanessabyrne
Guest
What about religious videos or shows or films not added by the original owner? Say EWTN shows or The Passion of the Christ? I watched these on YouTube, not knowing about all this “illegal YouTube copyright etc” thing. My intention was to watch these and learn from them, and the intention of those who upload it must be to spread the good news? Are we in the wrong? I’m sure not everyone knows of this (I didn’t at the time)
Should I let these people know in comments? Should they take them down? I feel bad though, thousands of people have things uploaded to YouTube or whatever that they don’t own but they don’t know about copyright issues. Any advice?
Should I let these people know in comments? Should they take them down? I feel bad though, thousands of people have things uploaded to YouTube or whatever that they don’t own but they don’t know about copyright issues. Any advice?
K
King_Louis_IX
Guest
I don’t think you need to comment on the videos or anything. Just stop watching them free on YouTube and buy the DVD if you want to watch it again!
E
epiclotus
Guest
That’s a very interesting article, but boy is that ruling convoluted. What I essentially gather from that is that as viewers, we’re not breaking copyright laws by watching illegal stuff on Youtube, we’re just plain, old-fashioned stealing. That makes understanding this so much simpler
.We have a pretty straightforward answer to the illegal Youtube videos question, then: Thou shalt not steal, 7th Commandment.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Stealing is illegal. If watching a youtube video is not illegal, how is it stealing?That’s a very interesting article, but boy is that ruling convoluted. What I essentially gather from that is that as viewers, we’re not breaking copyright laws by watching illegal stuff on Youtube, we’re just plain, old-fashioned stealing. That makes understanding this so much simpler
We have a pretty straightforward answer to the illegal Youtube videos question, then: Thou shalt not steal, 7th Commandment.
How did you gather from the article that watching copyrighted content on youtube that was not uploaded by content owner is stealing?
I would like to see a clear answer whether it is a sin or not to watch copyright infringing videos on youtube.
E
epiclotus
Guest
“…viewing the uploaded copy is equivalent to stealing a copyrighted book from a bookstore and reading it.”
“Someone who uses one of those addresses to… watch a copyrighted video for free is no more a copyright infringer than if he had snuck into a movie theater and watched a copyrighted movie without buying a ticket.”
Those are both from the article you posted. It’s still stealing; it’s just not stealing through copyright infringement. That’s why I called it plain and old-fashioned stealing. It’s wrong to watch illegal uploads not because they fall under breaking copyright law (or contributing to it in some way), but because it’s just downright stealing. Well, that’s a lot easier to figure out from a moral perspective.
Anyways, the article mentions this ruling is really only valid in the 7th Court District’s jurisdiction for now. Should it be used in a Supreme Court case, we’d have a ruling valid for the whole country, at least in legal terms. That said, it gives us a much better understanding of how to approach this for our question of culpability.
“Someone who uses one of those addresses to… watch a copyrighted video for free is no more a copyright infringer than if he had snuck into a movie theater and watched a copyrighted movie without buying a ticket.”
Those are both from the article you posted. It’s still stealing; it’s just not stealing through copyright infringement. That’s why I called it plain and old-fashioned stealing. It’s wrong to watch illegal uploads not because they fall under breaking copyright law (or contributing to it in some way), but because it’s just downright stealing. Well, that’s a lot easier to figure out from a moral perspective.
Anyways, the article mentions this ruling is really only valid in the 7th Court District’s jurisdiction for now. Should it be used in a Supreme Court case, we’d have a ruling valid for the whole country, at least in legal terms. That said, it gives us a much better understanding of how to approach this for our question of culpability.
K
King_Louis_IX
Guest
Yes, but though it is technically against the law, it is not necessarily wrong, in my opinion. For example, I think it is ok to watch a short clip from some movie, say, the One More Day scene in the 2012 rendition of Les Miz. The video does no harm to sales of the movie (if anything it would be negligible) since it is not the substance of it nor a significant length of it. The only potential problem I see is the viewer supporting illegal activity, namely the uploading of the video by the user who benefits from the number of views he or she gets on the video. However, I think this is only wrong if the user is uploading multiple portions of the same movie in other video clips. If this clip is the only movie clip the user has in his or her library, then no harm is done. I don’t think it is even sinful for him or her to upload it in the first place, though it is certainly illegal.
Now, my example was based purely on my own judgement; there is not much backing behind it. So it absolutely deserves questioning and second opinions. But I think it is a realistic scenario which we face all the time in our daily lives. We should be careful, but at the same time not lose sight of what matters and what is trivial.
Now, my example was based purely on my own judgement; there is not much backing behind it. So it absolutely deserves questioning and second opinions. But I think it is a realistic scenario which we face all the time in our daily lives. We should be careful, but at the same time not lose sight of what matters and what is trivial.
E
epiclotus
Guest
I have to disagree, and here’s why:
The principles at work need to be consistent regardless of environment. So, you have to ask yourself if you would do the same thing if the environment changed. Let’s look at this from an offline perspective, applying similar conditions otherwise:
If you wanted to watch that same clip of a movie without access to the internet, what would be your legitimate options?
Without the internet what would be your illegitimate options?
The point the article is making is that viewers aren’t engaging in copyright infringement by watching an illegally uploaded clip; they’re just stealing because the appropriate person wasn’t paid through appropriate means for what they’ve seen.
The principles at work need to be consistent regardless of environment. So, you have to ask yourself if you would do the same thing if the environment changed. Let’s look at this from an offline perspective, applying similar conditions otherwise:
If you wanted to watch that same clip of a movie without access to the internet, what would be your legitimate options?
- Borrow the film from a friend, library or rental store.
- Catch a showing of the film on a TV/Cable/Satellite channel.
- Buy the film from a store.
Without the internet what would be your illegitimate options?
- Make a copy from a friend’s or rental-place’s legit copy.
- Borrowing an illegitimately made copy.
- Steal the film from a store.
The point the article is making is that viewers aren’t engaging in copyright infringement by watching an illegally uploaded clip; they’re just stealing because the appropriate person wasn’t paid through appropriate means for what they’ve seen.
K
King_Louis_IX
Guest
Good point. But I think that the situation is not quite like that. Instead, without youtube, I would simply go without a pleasant viewing of the video in question. I wouldn’t go out of my way to see it.
Now I realize that that is not a justifiable reason for anything, all I am saying is that intentions factor in to the situation. It’s not so much a case of ‘well, the video is there anyway so I might as well watch it for free as opposed to nothing’ but rather ‘I want to see this clip, perhaps demonstrate something to a friend, and enjoy the good music.’ No harm is done so it isn’t an evil action, and it is not supporting evil, if my previous, albeit shaky, assumptions are upheld. I see a difference there. What do you think?
See, there is no monetary loss to the movie owner when someone watches a clip on YouTube, given my previous post’s assumptions: namely that the clip is not the substance nor a significant length. Thus a viewer would not try and buy the whole movie to see the clip otherwise. Moreover, the uploader did not upload other clips from the movie. Thus the viewer is not supporting what would then be a financial loss to the movie owner.
Now I realize that that is not a justifiable reason for anything, all I am saying is that intentions factor in to the situation. It’s not so much a case of ‘well, the video is there anyway so I might as well watch it for free as opposed to nothing’ but rather ‘I want to see this clip, perhaps demonstrate something to a friend, and enjoy the good music.’ No harm is done so it isn’t an evil action, and it is not supporting evil, if my previous, albeit shaky, assumptions are upheld. I see a difference there. What do you think?
See, there is no monetary loss to the movie owner when someone watches a clip on YouTube, given my previous post’s assumptions: namely that the clip is not the substance nor a significant length. Thus a viewer would not try and buy the whole movie to see the clip otherwise. Moreover, the uploader did not upload other clips from the movie. Thus the viewer is not supporting what would then be a financial loss to the movie owner.
E
epiclotus
Guest
The only reason said material is “easy” to obtain is because it takes a lot of time and expense on the part of the people that actually own the content to police that kind of activity. The law currently lets places like Youtube get away with hosting that stuff because of Safe Harbor laws. I wouldn’t be surprised if those ended up getting chucked out the window the next time copyright law gets a major revision because it makes it far too easy to wash one’s hands of illegal activity.
Look, you are essentially saying that “X is okay because I want to do it.” You say no harm is done, but you are wrong. Harm was done when someone made the illegal copy. How can you suggest that taking advantage of that harm is in any way right? In a scenario like this, your intentions have no bearing on the situation. This is especially true given that, for almost all cases of content on Youtube, legitimate means are available. Even if there weren’t, though, that would give you no right to benefit from someone else’s wrong. There are many shows that I am interested in that have no legitimate release that I can enjoy, either because their owners haven’t released them to any home media or it simply isn’t available in a language I can understand. Those are not justifiable reasons for watching what I haven’t been given the right to do.
That’s kind of where all of this leads: entitlement. “X exists, therefore I have a right to it.” It is hubris, an extreme pride, that says I may do what I will. This attitude is very much against Catholic teaching. It may sound too grandiose when we are talking about something small, like a video clip, but that’s what it is.
Look, you are essentially saying that “X is okay because I want to do it.” You say no harm is done, but you are wrong. Harm was done when someone made the illegal copy. How can you suggest that taking advantage of that harm is in any way right? In a scenario like this, your intentions have no bearing on the situation. This is especially true given that, for almost all cases of content on Youtube, legitimate means are available. Even if there weren’t, though, that would give you no right to benefit from someone else’s wrong. There are many shows that I am interested in that have no legitimate release that I can enjoy, either because their owners haven’t released them to any home media or it simply isn’t available in a language I can understand. Those are not justifiable reasons for watching what I haven’t been given the right to do.
That’s kind of where all of this leads: entitlement. “X exists, therefore I have a right to it.” It is hubris, an extreme pride, that says I may do what I will. This attitude is very much against Catholic teaching. It may sound too grandiose when we are talking about something small, like a video clip, but that’s what it is.
K
King_Louis_IX
Guest
You misunderstand me. I completely agree with what you said about justification based on want. But my entire premise is based on the idea that the uploader is not sinning when he illegally uploaded the video in our example. If he is, then I agree that harm is being done when you watch it.
Yes, like we have already established, the user is doing something illegal when he uploads the video. However, just because it is illegal does not necessarily make it sinful. Intentions can be huge in determining this. For example, speeding is illegal, but depending on your intentions, it might not be sinful. If you are speeding for the sake of speeding, it is sinful. If you are speeding to the hospital to save a life, it is not. Another example more relevant to the discussion: Sharing music is illegal. If you give CD’s to all your friends, you are sinning. If you share music with your immediate family, I think you are perfectly innocent. Why? Because I think the law loses its point in this instance. I don’t have a problem with sharing a movie amongst family members, or an audio book. Many possessions are shared amongst family members, especially those who live in the same house.
In the youtube case, I wonder whether the uploader’s actions fall under the second example, ie the law losing its point. True, he is making the video public, but it is still not harming the owner at all. The law in question is meant to protect the owner. The video does not lose any revenue for the owner. If anything, it increases popularity and makes people consider buying the whole film. And how does intention fit in here? Well, given the nature of the video, the uploader is simply trying to share an enjoyable scene, bringing joy to me and the other viewers. Yes, it is illegal, but I wonder whether it is sinful, unless of course the user’s intentions were for some reason much more negative.
I don’t agree that making an illegal copy of a small clip of a film is a necessarily harmful action. Not if the clip is insignificant in size and insignificant in content.
Yes, like we have already established, the user is doing something illegal when he uploads the video. However, just because it is illegal does not necessarily make it sinful. Intentions can be huge in determining this. For example, speeding is illegal, but depending on your intentions, it might not be sinful. If you are speeding for the sake of speeding, it is sinful. If you are speeding to the hospital to save a life, it is not. Another example more relevant to the discussion: Sharing music is illegal. If you give CD’s to all your friends, you are sinning. If you share music with your immediate family, I think you are perfectly innocent. Why? Because I think the law loses its point in this instance. I don’t have a problem with sharing a movie amongst family members, or an audio book. Many possessions are shared amongst family members, especially those who live in the same house.
In the youtube case, I wonder whether the uploader’s actions fall under the second example, ie the law losing its point. True, he is making the video public, but it is still not harming the owner at all. The law in question is meant to protect the owner. The video does not lose any revenue for the owner. If anything, it increases popularity and makes people consider buying the whole film. And how does intention fit in here? Well, given the nature of the video, the uploader is simply trying to share an enjoyable scene, bringing joy to me and the other viewers. Yes, it is illegal, but I wonder whether it is sinful, unless of course the user’s intentions were for some reason much more negative.
I don’t agree that making an illegal copy of a small clip of a film is a necessarily harmful action. Not if the clip is insignificant in size and insignificant in content.
E
epiclotus
Guest
Okay, I see what you are saying. The problem with your scenarios, though, is that there is still something wrong going on in many instances. If you loan or give your own copy of a CD to a family member, nothing wrong is done. If you make a copy of a CD you bought to give to family, then yes, you actually are doing something illegal and immoral. The intention is still irrelevant in that scenario. If you want to share something with a family member, then you should give them your own copy, or if you like it enough (or think they will), buy them a copy. Neither of those things is illegal or immoral. By making a new copy to give to someone, even a family member, you are depriving someone else of money that they ought to have earned.
In the Youtube case, where is the line drawn? Who determines what is “significant” or “small” when it comes to a clip? What if, through the actions of many such uploaders, an entire film ends up becoming available to watch? Each individual, in your argument, has done nothing immoral, yet the actions of many combined may result in great harm to the owner of the film. Even though the injury to the owner is small in one case, it adds to the overall harm done. Stealing a pack of gum is insignificant compared to stealing a car, but both are wrong. The consequences and impact may differ, but the underlying principle of “do not steal” is still coherent throughout. Stealing a small part of something is still stealing. Copying a small part and giving it away to the public is still infringing.
I really do understand what you’re trying to say. It “feels” innocent enough to only upload a small part of a greater work. That’s the problem, though, in that it isn’t the uploader’s right to do so in the first place. They have no independent rights to the work at all, period. The only rights they have are those conferred on them by the owner, which in the case of buying a movie, is the right to view privately. You don’t have the right to copy it; you don’t even have the right to circumvent the movie’s encryption (a whole other set of laws) which would allow you to upload the clip in the first place. Excepting Fair Use laws (which these examples would not fall under), there are very few rights people have when it comes to dealing with other’s works.
In the Youtube case, where is the line drawn? Who determines what is “significant” or “small” when it comes to a clip? What if, through the actions of many such uploaders, an entire film ends up becoming available to watch? Each individual, in your argument, has done nothing immoral, yet the actions of many combined may result in great harm to the owner of the film. Even though the injury to the owner is small in one case, it adds to the overall harm done. Stealing a pack of gum is insignificant compared to stealing a car, but both are wrong. The consequences and impact may differ, but the underlying principle of “do not steal” is still coherent throughout. Stealing a small part of something is still stealing. Copying a small part and giving it away to the public is still infringing.
I really do understand what you’re trying to say. It “feels” innocent enough to only upload a small part of a greater work. That’s the problem, though, in that it isn’t the uploader’s right to do so in the first place. They have no independent rights to the work at all, period. The only rights they have are those conferred on them by the owner, which in the case of buying a movie, is the right to view privately. You don’t have the right to copy it; you don’t even have the right to circumvent the movie’s encryption (a whole other set of laws) which would allow you to upload the clip in the first place. Excepting Fair Use laws (which these examples would not fall under), there are very few rights people have when it comes to dealing with other’s works.
S
Steph_L
Guest
I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but creating fan-art is technically copyright infringement (making no distinctions between whether you’re doing it for profit or not, or if you’re posting it on the internet or not)
Going by the illegal = sinful approach, then I would be sinning by doodling Spiderman in my notebook.
S
Steph_L
Guest
You should also consider who’s uploading it.
Is it the official Youtube page or just some random dude with a confusing username?
Is it a famous youtuber who is known to respect copyright laws and has never been in trouble with copyright infringement?
Is it a film critic? (eg. Steven Greydanus posted clips of My Neighbor Totoro on his website, Decentfilms.com
Is it someone who works for an official studio (eg. Pixar, Dreamworks, Disney)?
Someone who works for a big website (deviantart)?
Is it uploaded by Youtube itself?
I say stick to the official Youtube channels and big Youtubers (because big Youtubers are and have to be careful about copyright infringement).
I am planning to ask aplogists or a priest about this stuff. Once I get an answer, it probably gets clearer.
Is it the official Youtube page or just some random dude with a confusing username?
Is it a famous youtuber who is known to respect copyright laws and has never been in trouble with copyright infringement?
Is it a film critic? (eg. Steven Greydanus posted clips of My Neighbor Totoro on his website, Decentfilms.com
Is it someone who works for an official studio (eg. Pixar, Dreamworks, Disney)?
Someone who works for a big website (deviantart)?
Is it uploaded by Youtube itself?
I say stick to the official Youtube channels and big Youtubers (because big Youtubers are and have to be careful about copyright infringement).
I am planning to ask aplogists or a priest about this stuff. Once I get an answer, it probably gets clearer.
K
King_Louis_IX
Guest
Ah good! Could you tell us the result of your asking when you do it?
Your logic is good, epiclotus, and I agree with it. But I’m still stuck on the premise. If I own a CD and let my brother burn it onto his computer, I do not think I am sinning. Granted, I am depriving the seller of more money that my brother would have provided by buying the CD himself. But I think it is not immoral. Why?
Let’s try another example. I buy a book, and stick it on my bookshelf. I think it is ok to let my brother read it as many times as he wants. True, my brother is enjoying a product he would otherwise have to pay for. In fact, let’s say I am exceedingly lazy and so I make a copy of the book to go in another room in the house, so that I can read there without having to walk back and forth. I do not think that is immoral either (besides perhaps the laziness aspect…). However, I certainly cannot go and hand out copies of the book to my neighborhood.
A second example. Let’s say my mother and my sister share shoes. The shoemaker is missing out on sales from each shared pair of shoes to my sister. I do not think that she is committing sin. However, she cannot let the whole neighborhood share her shoes.
I think letting my brother burn the CD is the same idea. It is not just a matter of the quantity of people involved, because that would not necessarily justify the sharing. I think the relationship to the person matters in this case. Perhaps these every day occurrences in real life, of which there are many, can be separated into categories: those which are sinful and those which are simply us being “human.” Does that make sense or is it preposterous?
I admit that my reasoning does not seem to be founded upon anything solid, but if we are honest with ourselves, is it not true that we do things like the above examples all the time? In ways we don’t even think of? I don’t think we need to start a wholesale change in our lifestyles because of these actions. I think we need to draw a line where we deem appropriate between being too scrupulous and too careless.
In the danger of having this post become too lengthy, I should add that in the case you mentioned, about what happens when multiple individuals upload multiple videos that happen to add up to the whole film, I think it then becomes the responsibility of the viewer not to choose to watch all the clips together instead of buying/renting the movie.
Your logic is good, epiclotus, and I agree with it. But I’m still stuck on the premise. If I own a CD and let my brother burn it onto his computer, I do not think I am sinning. Granted, I am depriving the seller of more money that my brother would have provided by buying the CD himself. But I think it is not immoral. Why?
Let’s try another example. I buy a book, and stick it on my bookshelf. I think it is ok to let my brother read it as many times as he wants. True, my brother is enjoying a product he would otherwise have to pay for. In fact, let’s say I am exceedingly lazy and so I make a copy of the book to go in another room in the house, so that I can read there without having to walk back and forth. I do not think that is immoral either (besides perhaps the laziness aspect…). However, I certainly cannot go and hand out copies of the book to my neighborhood.
A second example. Let’s say my mother and my sister share shoes. The shoemaker is missing out on sales from each shared pair of shoes to my sister. I do not think that she is committing sin. However, she cannot let the whole neighborhood share her shoes.
I think letting my brother burn the CD is the same idea. It is not just a matter of the quantity of people involved, because that would not necessarily justify the sharing. I think the relationship to the person matters in this case. Perhaps these every day occurrences in real life, of which there are many, can be separated into categories: those which are sinful and those which are simply us being “human.” Does that make sense or is it preposterous?
I admit that my reasoning does not seem to be founded upon anything solid, but if we are honest with ourselves, is it not true that we do things like the above examples all the time? In ways we don’t even think of? I don’t think we need to start a wholesale change in our lifestyles because of these actions. I think we need to draw a line where we deem appropriate between being too scrupulous and too careless.
In the danger of having this post become too lengthy, I should add that in the case you mentioned, about what happens when multiple individuals upload multiple videos that happen to add up to the whole film, I think it then becomes the responsibility of the viewer not to choose to watch all the clips together instead of buying/renting the movie.
S
Steph_L
Guest
But I don’t want to scare you off or make you feel paralysed (hmm, I thought paralyzed was a valid spelling?) because of these restrictions.
I think what we all need is a break from the internet and enjoy our lives a little bit more. Outside the internet, copyright is less of an issue and it’s easier to come to moral conclusions.
And, if you ever do watch a video which has a fishy copyright issue, it shouldn’t be super significant to you because you can just leave it behind, it’s not something you’d be attached (I thought it was attatched?)to. Someone who spends their life on the internet might be paralysed by it because it’s something they do all the time.
If you want to watch stuff, go get Netflix, borrow some DVD’s from your public library, request the library to put something on the shelves if they haven’t already, and you’d probably be fine.
I admit I’m guilty of spending my life on the internet (but usually here on CA, although my sensitivity towards other people’s opinions tends to get to me and sometimes I think I should stay away from internet forums for a while–which is why I like getting a straight answer from an apologist rather than a whole bunch of different answers)
I think what we all need is a break from the internet and enjoy our lives a little bit more. Outside the internet, copyright is less of an issue and it’s easier to come to moral conclusions.
And, if you ever do watch a video which has a fishy copyright issue, it shouldn’t be super significant to you because you can just leave it behind, it’s not something you’d be attached (I thought it was attatched?)to. Someone who spends their life on the internet might be paralysed by it because it’s something they do all the time.
If you want to watch stuff, go get Netflix, borrow some DVD’s from your public library, request the library to put something on the shelves if they haven’t already, and you’d probably be fine.
I admit I’m guilty of spending my life on the internet (but usually here on CA, although my sensitivity towards other people’s opinions tends to get to me and sometimes I think I should stay away from internet forums for a while–which is why I like getting a straight answer from an apologist rather than a whole bunch of different answers)
S
Steph_L
Guest
I asked a question on the AAA part of the forum about whether something being illegal necessarily makes it immoral (I used the example of drawing fan-art when you’re not making profit or posting it on the internet and singing somebody else’s song).
Hopefully it gets answered.
Hopefully it gets answered.
E
epiclotus
Guest
This is not overly difficult to work out from a moral standpoint. In your book example, you have legally purchased the book. If your brother reads it (assuming he has your permission), that is your prerogative to lend it to him. The key here is that while he is borrowing the book from you, you do not have access to it. There is no duplicate copy being made because you are deprived of the copy while he has it. Similarly, if you choose to read it together, that is your right to share it with him because no second copy is made. If he does take it without your permission, you can take it back and deprive him of it. This is why it’s perfectly legit to lend physical books, movies, games, etc. to others because only one person at a time has possession of the copy.
Now, if you make a photocopy of the entire book for yourself to have in a second room, you are doing something wrong. If your brother read your original, he has not done anything wrong, but if he reads the photocopied book, then yet another wrong has been committed. You may make photocopies of portions of a book for many reasons, but there is an undefined line where you go from copying for personal or academic use into copyright infringement. Because you don’t want to cross that line, it’s usually better to ere on the side of caution by either asking the publisher/author’s permission or just getting yourself another copy of the work.
Again, the same principle applies. Your mother and sister can share shoes because when you legally own something, you may give it to whomever you wish. Also, while one your sister wears the shoes, your mother is not, and vice versa.
This is deviating slightly on the topic, but that’s one reason why the legal principles in entertainment have shifted from selling consumers a product to licensing them a product. If you read the fine print, the copy of a movie you buy usually says something to the effect of “licensed for home use only”. There may be some argument to be made that most people are ignorant of this fact, but one’s purchase is essentially an acceptance of the contract. If you disagree with the contract, you are usually more than welcome to return the product or contact the company for a refund. If you’ve ever read the End-User License Agreement (EULA) on a piece of software, it requires you to accept the terms before installing. As such, you are legally binding yourself to an agreement, which contains within clauses like you won’t distribute unauthorized copies of said software. Look at the liner notes of more current CD’s, and you’re likely to find similar wording.
This is categorically different than the other examples you’ve posted. You have created a new copy for another individual, a right you did not possess. You are allowed to burn CD’s because of a principle in audio law called format shifting. Movies are not included in format shifting, though. This is why newer movies have started to include their own digital copies of the material in the purchase, as an disincentive against customers trying to break the law by circumventing a DVD encryption. People have been trying to justify format shifting their DVD’s for the past decade by saying the movie studios don’t offer them what they want, the freedom to watch anywhere/anytime. Now, these lawbreakers have no excuse.
We are Catholics, though, and we are called to be better. I suggest contemplating Ephesians 4:15-24 vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P10B.HTM, as it talks about becoming a new man and the kind of life we are meant to lead.
I am not singling you or anyone out specifically, but the one question that does beg asking is why all this rigmarole for entertainment? We are debating the legality and morality of amusements obtained through illicit methods at best. Most of us who have the time and resources to care about such things should really stop and consider how blessed we are that such matters are even up for debate. I think the better questions are that if you have so little that you need to steal from Youtube, wouldn’t your time be better spent improving your life? If you have more than that, why do you need to resort to such when you have the means to seek truly legitimate sources? If you have more time than money, but are not in demand of your necessities, then maybe instead of seeking out more entertainment to fill your time, wouldn’t it be better to go find some way to better the world?
K
King_Louis_IX
Guest
Yes, I think you are right. The CD burning example is different from the other two examples. That is definitely helpful!
I hope I am not becoming obnoxious if I continue probing this, but I want to get to the bottom of it.
First of all, I really like your point about the CD’s. I should give that a second thought. I suppose the only way you could justify the burning would be if you thought the law was unjust in its restrictions to close family members, or something like that.
Secondly, why, would you say, is it wrong for my brother to read a photocopied book when he could be reading the original in another room instead? I understand why it could be wrong if the copy left the house and stayed in, say, my brother’s house. True, it is illegal, unlike letting him borrow the original, but is it wrong? The fact that it is illegal just isn’t good enough for me, because the copy isn’t being sold, nor is it stopping further sales of the book. If neither of these are the case, then I think the law loses its point and is no longer relevant. This point keeps recurring for me, it seems, so maybe we should hash it out. And it is applicable to the youtube question.
When you say, “the one question that does beg asking is why all this rigmarole for entertainment?”, I think it is an important question, because it effects so many little things in our daily lives, at least for me. I don’t visit youtube very often, even before I started this thread. I think the youtube question is an example of a greater phenomenon that is shaping social life, more than simply personal entertainment desires. Frankly, I would quickly get used to never visiting youtube again, but then I would still be faced with youtube frequently by others, whether through facebook or twitter or email, etc. So for me it is important that I am solid in how to deal with any given social interaction that comes my way that involves youtube or some other form of potentially illegal sharing of content that happens all the time, all over the place. It is practically unavoidable, despite the best of intentions.
I hope I am not becoming obnoxious if I continue probing this, but I want to get to the bottom of it.
First of all, I really like your point about the CD’s. I should give that a second thought. I suppose the only way you could justify the burning would be if you thought the law was unjust in its restrictions to close family members, or something like that.
Secondly, why, would you say, is it wrong for my brother to read a photocopied book when he could be reading the original in another room instead? I understand why it could be wrong if the copy left the house and stayed in, say, my brother’s house. True, it is illegal, unlike letting him borrow the original, but is it wrong? The fact that it is illegal just isn’t good enough for me, because the copy isn’t being sold, nor is it stopping further sales of the book. If neither of these are the case, then I think the law loses its point and is no longer relevant. This point keeps recurring for me, it seems, so maybe we should hash it out. And it is applicable to the youtube question.
When you say, “the one question that does beg asking is why all this rigmarole for entertainment?”, I think it is an important question, because it effects so many little things in our daily lives, at least for me. I don’t visit youtube very often, even before I started this thread. I think the youtube question is an example of a greater phenomenon that is shaping social life, more than simply personal entertainment desires. Frankly, I would quickly get used to never visiting youtube again, but then I would still be faced with youtube frequently by others, whether through facebook or twitter or email, etc. So for me it is important that I am solid in how to deal with any given social interaction that comes my way that involves youtube or some other form of potentially illegal sharing of content that happens all the time, all over the place. It is practically unavoidable, despite the best of intentions.
- Status