YouTube and illegal videos

  • Thread starter Thread starter King_Louis_IX
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
epiclotus said:
“…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.
Click to expand...
I emailed Patrick McKay about those quotes from the article and asked if those quotes meant watching a copyrighted video was stealing and I asked his permission to quote him which he said I could do

No it’s an analogy. It’s not actually saying someone who streams something is guilty of theft. The point is it may be gaining illicit access to the copyrighted content, but since you’re not actually making a copy it’s not copyright infringement. It’s not theft either because you’re not taking anything and depriving someone else of something. The judge is basically just saying he thinks it’s wrong, but it’s not illegal. That’s all you really need to understand from it. All of the judge’s moral philosophizing doesn’t really matter. The important part is the actual ruling, which is that watching a pirated stream is not copyright infringement.

Personally I think his analogies are way off anyway. I think a better analogy would be not stealing a book from a bookstore, but just walking into the bookstore and reading the entire book without buying it, then putting it back on the shelf. You’ve benefited from the book’s content without paying for it, but you haven’t broken any law since there’s no law saying you can’t read the entire book in the bookstore. You didn’t make a copy so it’s not copyright infringement, and you didn’t take the book, so it’s not stealing. I think that would be a better analogy for it. Or maybe reading a pirated book that someone else copied, without you even knowing it was pirated. The person who copied the book committed copyright infringement, but you didn’t. That’s probably closer. Make sense?

He is not a Priest, he can not comment if it is a sin to watch a copyrighted video and a view on whether watching a video is encouraging copyright infringement would only be his, these are his opinions only, other attorneys may have different views.
 
Is it copyright infringement to go into a bookshop and read text out of books and not buy the books?
 
_Abyssinia said:
Is it copyright infringement to go into a bookshop and read text out of books and not buy the books?
Click to expand...
No. Bookstores let people do that. The bookstore can make that decision, because they have already paid for the book.
 
Is a video committing copyright infringement on youtube if a person reads out a poem from say John Donne?
 
_Abyssinia said:
I emailed Patrick McKay about those quotes from the article and asked if those quotes meant watching a copyrighted video was stealing and I asked his permission to quote him which he said I could do

No it’s an analogy. It’s not actually saying someone who streams something is guilty of theft. The point is it may be gaining illicit access to the copyrighted content, but since you’re not actually making a copy it’s not copyright infringement. It’s not theft either because you’re not taking anything and depriving someone else of something. The judge is basically just saying he thinks it’s wrong, but it’s not illegal. That’s all you really need to understand from it. All of the judge’s moral philosophizing doesn’t really matter. The important part is the actual ruling, which is that watching a pirated stream is not copyright infringement.

Personally I think his analogies are way off anyway. I think a better analogy would be not stealing a book from a bookstore, but just walking into the bookstore and reading the entire book without buying it, then putting it back on the shelf. You’ve benefited from the book’s content without paying for it, but you haven’t broken any law since there’s no law saying you can’t read the entire book in the bookstore. You didn’t make a copy so it’s not copyright infringement, and you didn’t take the book, so it’s not stealing. I think that would be a better analogy for it. Or maybe reading a pirated book that someone else copied, without you even knowing it was pirated. The person who copied the book committed copyright infringement, but you didn’t. That’s probably closer. Make sense?

He is not a Priest, he can not comment if it is a sin to watch a copyrighted video and a view on whether watching a video is encouraging copyright infringement would only be his, these are his opinions only, other attorneys may have different views.
Click to expand...
Other attorneys don’t have different views. There is only one set of laws and should an infringement case go to court, the complainant and defense had better be on the same page. Trust me, if previous case law is not indicated in the complaint, the Judge will not be happy.

The copyright holder has complete control over distribution, including electronic. Some try to create a smokescreen by using phrases like “the changing technology” or similar. But distribution, physical or digital, is the same thing.

All those “free” movies on TV? Not free. If I owned a TV station, every time I show that movie, I pay whoever owns the rights a fee. Even if I have cable, I’m paying someone for it and my data can be sold to third parties. The same with “file sharing” sites. They have everyone’s e-mail and valuable data. They can sell their download data to anybody. So, that somebody will get a spreadsheet that indicates this book was downloaded 2,000 times, this one, 20, and so on. Once a site gets enough eyeballs, you can start selling ad space, just like TV.

So if Netflix wants to stream a movie to my computer for $5, but I can get it for free from Bob’sLiberty site - I lose customers. I lose money.

Peace,
Ed
 
Too add further confusion to youtube, there are companies like Lions Gate which instead of asking a youtube user to take down an excerpt from a Mad Men episode, left it up and youtube and Lions Gate make money from advertising that runs on that video:

nytimes.com/2010/09/03/technology/03youtube.html?_r=0

How can you find out which videos were not originally uploaded with the content owner’s permission but have since been found by content owners and been accepted to stay available? Is it sinful to watch a video even though it may have acceptance from the copyright owners to stay available, because it was originally uploaded as pure copyright infringement and perhaps by viewing the video you may be encouraging copyright infringement?
 
It is not sinful to watch it if the copyright owners allow it.
 
As long as the username is officially that of the company providing the videos.
 
Yeah. That’s why it’s usually best to limit your use of YouTube, while at the same time not becoming too scrupulous about it.
 
There is right and wrong, black and white. We should be scrupulous to avoid sin.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
There is right and wrong, black and white. We should be scrupulous to avoid sin.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
What Priest or Bishop has said watching copyrighted content on youtube is sin?

Fair use means that not all videos on youtube are black and white when it comes to copyright.
 
You want even more copyright restrictions on daily life?

You can’t sing a copyrighted song publicly, that’s infringement according to some lawyers (then again I probably shouldn’t rely on Yahoo Answers from someone who claims to be a lawyer). Therefore:
Singing Only Hope at a wedding reception = illegal
Singing Only Hope at a talent show = illegal
Singing Only Hope and videotaping it for the family = illegal

It is against copyright law to distribute (whether it’s on the internet or if you’re just passing a piece of paper around in the classroom) derivative works (eg. fan-art) of copyrighted works. Therefore:
Drawing a picture of Spiderman and showing it to mom and dad = illegal
Drawing a picture of Spiderman and showing it to friends = illegal
Drawing a picture of Spiderman and taking a picture of it = illegal

Common sense would tell you that copyright owners lose no money nor do they care if you drew a picture of Spiderman and showed it to mom. It’s technically not fair use (I don’t think) though, so it’s against the law. Nor do they care if you sang their song in your school talent show.
I’ve heard of this story where Disney closed down a school for having Mickey Mouse painted on the wall. :confused:

There’s a difference in respecting other people’s works and being restricted.
There is also a difference between loving God and doing what pleases him and being scrupulous and thinking that he will damn you for every single thing you do wrong.
 
Right, I think it’s important not to lose focus and get lost in the little technicalities of the law. The problem with that statement is that it is thoroughly unsatisfactory for drawing a definitive line between what is too scrupulous and what is not. Personal judgement factors in to each situation.
 
I watch news clips regularly on youtube, and I have been trying to find out if posting news clips is copyright infringement. Does anybody know? It probably is copyright infringement I found out, but positing a news clip and putting your own commentary below the video in the description could make it fair use apparently.

Copyright law needs to be reformed. Fair use, Copyright law of 1976 and Digital Millennium Copyright Act were enacted before youtube. We are trying to navigate youtube using laws that are perhaps not made to deal with this age of posting online videos.
 
I watch news clips regularly on youtube, and I have been trying to find out if posting news clips is copyright infringement. Does anybody know? It probably is copyright infringement I found out, but positing a news clip and putting your own commentary below the video in the description could make it fair use apparently.

Copyright law needs to be reformed. Fair use, Copyright law of 1976 and Digital Millennium Copyright Act were enacted before youtube. We are trying to navigate youtube using laws that are perhaps not made to deal with this age of posting online videos.:eek:
 
I watch news clips regularly on youtube, and I have been trying to find out if posting news clips is copyright infringement. Does anybody know? It probably is copyright infringement I found out, but positing a news clip and putting your own commentary below the video in the description could make it fair use apparently.

Copyright law needs to be reformed. Fair use, Copyright law of 1976 and Digital Millennium Copyright Act were enacted before youtube. We are trying to navigate youtube using laws that are perhaps not made to deal with this age of posting online videos.:cool:
 
I watch news clips regularly on youtube, and I have been trying to find out if posting news clips is copyright infringement. Does anybody know? It probably is copyright infringement I found out, but positing a news clip and putting your own commentary below the video in the description could make it fair use apparently.

Copyright law needs to be reformed. Fair use, Copyright law of 1976 and Digital Millennium Copyright Act were enacted before youtube. We are trying to navigate youtube using laws that are perhaps not made to deal with this age of posting online videos.:confused::mad:
 
I watch news clips regularly on youtube, and I have been trying to find out if posting news clips is copyright infringement. Does anybody know? It probably is copyright infringement I found out, but positing a news clip and putting your own commentary below the video in the description could make it fair use apparently.

Copyright law needs to be reformed. Fair use, Copyright law of 1976 and Digital Millennium Copyright Act were enacted before youtube. We are trying to navigate youtube using laws that are perhaps not made to deal with this age of posting online videos.👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top