RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Morality & Ethics



Message

McFatty -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/13/2008 3:33:46 PM)

There is a huge difference between basically keeping videotaped copies of a show you liked (essentially the same as finding it through any other medium) and stealing movies which are still in the theater which, if you wanted to, you could still go pay to see.



Ps103 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/13/2008 3:36:22 PM)

quote:

I think the public owns a piece of any art presented for public consumption.


Really? What about books? Writing is an art, and is also covered by copyright laws.

I see by your profile you are a history teacher (a noble profession, btw). If I were your student and you assigned me to write a paper about-oh, let's see...John Adams early life, and I copied word for word from McCullough, would you give me an "A?" How about if I just cribbed it from wiki?



Ps103 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/13/2008 3:39:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: McFatty

There is a huge difference between basically keeping videotaped copies of a show you liked (essentially the same as finding it through any other medium) and stealing movies which are still in the theater which, if you wanted to, you could still go pay to see.



But the situation in the OP was *not* keeping copies--it was buying bootlegged copies, which involves an exchange of money. I do not see how that could possibly be covered by "Fair Use," which is what makes it legal to record something for one's own use.



McFatty -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/13/2008 3:49:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ps103

quote:

ORIGINAL: McFatty

There is a huge difference between basically keeping videotaped copies of a show you liked (essentially the same as finding it through any other medium) and stealing movies which are still in the theater which, if you wanted to, you could still go pay to see.



But the situation in the OP was *not* keeping copies--it was buying bootlegged copies, which involves an exchange of money. I do not see how that could possibly be covered by "Fair Use," which is what makes it legal to record something for one's own use.


Okay, what if the money exchanged simply covered the cost of the blank media?



Rufas2000 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/13/2008 4:01:33 PM)

quote:

John Adams early life, and I copied word for word from McCullough, would you give me an "A?" How about if I just cribbed it from wiki?


There is a difference between taking credit for something (saying I did this when you did not) and enjoying what someone else has done. I would give them an "F" because they claimed it was theirs.

Speaking of history (and thanks for the compliment) there is a historical angle to this. What if our government suddenly tried to edit the great works of art and made them the only legal versions for sale? Would you still feel that the law is the law? One thing that irritated me was George Lucas' insistence that his new versions of the original star Wars trilogy would be the only ones available on DVD (a relatively permanent widespread format). While he has the right to distribute and promote his own film the way he wants to I felt he owed it to the historical record to archive the originals on DVD. This he did in a bare bones way on the latest release of those DVDs. I feel this was the perfect compromise. The originals are now archived for all time (or at least for awhile) in the historical record and by making them bare bones he ensures that his new versions will be seen as the definitive versions.

BTW: that was a great book.

quote:

What about personal art collections? If a person has art work that was once avaible for public viewing should they later be forced to give it up if enough people desire it?


Should they be legally forced to? Of course not. Would it be the right thing to do to give it up or donate it to a museum? Actually yes I think so. Many people do it all the time.

BTW: for a history teacher this isn't my proudest writing moment. I can do better but my brain - typing interface isn't working at max capacity today. Oh well.



gengwall -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/13/2008 4:50:30 PM)

The copyright law may be flawed in a person's view (not mine, though), but it does not violate God's law in any way and therefore must be followed by Christians. Period, end of discussion. The rights owner of a work of art can do what ever they want with it. That includes withholding it from you and it is irrelevant how bad you want it.



McFatty -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/13/2008 5:05:00 PM)

Do those people who think that it's a sin to even watch the shows not available on DVD think that all record functions on VCRs should have been disabled years ago?



gengwall -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/13/2008 5:06:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: McFatty

Do those people who think that it's a sin to even watch the shows not available on DVD think that all record functions on VCRs should have been disabled years ago?

Fair use has already been explained.



McFatty -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/13/2008 5:18:05 PM)

Perhaps I misunderstood it, then. Would you care to help me with the idea?

If it's okay to tape a show when it airs and keep it, why would it not be okay for me to give a friend the money for blank DVDs so he could burn me a copy of the same show he taped? I ask because those are both ways of bypassing the withholding you spoke of earlier.

Sometimes it's so hard to get a straight answer on this site.



Ps103 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/13/2008 7:10:42 PM)

quote:

Sometimes it's so hard to get a straight answer on this site.


Well, then, HERE's the code--happy reading[sm=aside.gif]



McFatty -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/13/2008 7:37:41 PM)

So the US permits video recording for domestic use. That fact convinces me.



Ps103 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/13/2008 7:42:52 PM)

I think the relevant bit with respect to this thread is Title 18[;)]



Rufas2000 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/13/2008 10:53:09 PM)

Thanks again to all who responded and the spirited discussion. I can't say I'm surprised with what was said but it was said very well.



Strider33 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/15/2008 8:22:37 AM)

I want to generalize the question to the following: "When, if ever, is violating the law ethical?"

I'm guessing that the seller and the buyer of bootleg DVDs are both in violation of copyright laws, and have commited a tort against the owner of the rights. But I'm not a lawyer, so I'll defer to someone who really knows. OTOH, courts have ruled that making a VHS copy of material received over the air and using that VHS copy for private personal use is legal. There are technical issues concerning quality that make writing a DVD different from writing a VHS tape. I don't know whether this is relevant or not.

But the larger question is, when should people who follow an ethical standard follow that standard, even when the prevailing laws conflict with that standard?


Hardly anyone would fault a Christian (or a non believer, for that matter) who violated the Nuremberg laws and shielded Jews from deportation and practically certain death. One might argue that the Nuremberg laws were "illegal laws" because of the way they were enacted. Others might argue that it's the content of the Nuremberg laws that make them illegal, regardless of how they came to be.

Many people would argue that sheltering runaway slaves is proper action for a Christian, even if it flies in the face of some country's laws. However, Paul chose to deal with Philemon and Onesimus in a different way. Is Paul's pattern in this case intended to be a guideline for all Christians in all cases? I don't think so.

A few people might argue that the abortion laws in the US have resulted in such a staggering loss of life that Christians are justified in violating those laws. I worry about this being the beginning of a slippery slope, where Christians begin to believe they have the right to pick and choose among secular laws we will abide by, and ones we will flout. Still, blind obedience to secular laws is also a slippery slope.



ta_mosquito -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/15/2008 10:21:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gengwall

The copyright law may be flawed in a person's view (not mine, though), but it does not violate God's law in any way and therefore must be followed by Christians. Period, end of discussion. The rights owner of a work of art can do what ever they want with it. That includes withholding it from you and it is irrelevant how bad you want it.


Amen.



ta_mosquito -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/15/2008 10:22:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: McFatty

Do those people who think that it's a sin to even watch the shows not available on DVD think that all record functions on VCRs should have been disabled years ago?


Who said this? If we record it for our own use, that is part of Fair Use. [8|]

Edited to add: sorry - responded before I read the rest of the thread.



SovereignIsHe -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/15/2008 3:21:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Strider33

I want to generalize the question to the following: "When, if ever, is violating the law ethical?"

I'm guessing that the seller and the buyer of bootleg DVDs are both in violation of copyright laws, and have commited a tort against the owner of the rights. But I'm not a lawyer, so I'll defer to someone who really knows. OTOH, courts have ruled that making a VHS copy of material received over the air and using that VHS copy for private personal use is legal. There are technical issues concerning quality that make writing a DVD different from writing a VHS tape. I don't know whether this is relevant or not.

But the larger question is, when should people who follow an ethical standard follow that standard, even when the prevailing laws conflict with that standard?


Hardly anyone would fault a Christian (or a non believer, for that matter) who violated the Nuremberg laws and shielded Jews from deportation and practically certain death. One might argue that the Nuremberg laws were "illegal laws" because of the way they were enacted. Others might argue that it's the content of the Nuremberg laws that make them illegal, regardless of how they came to be.

Many people would argue that sheltering runaway slaves is proper action for a Christian, even if it flies in the face of some country's laws. However, Paul chose to deal with Philemon and Onesimus in a different way. Is Paul's pattern in this case intended to be a guideline for all Christians in all cases? I don't think so.

A few people might argue that the abortion laws in the US have resulted in such a staggering loss of life that Christians are justified in violating those laws. I worry about this being the beginning of a slippery slope, where Christians begin to believe they have the right to pick and choose among secular laws we will abide by, and ones we will flout. Still, blind obedience to secular laws is also a slippery slope.


Peter wrote.... Honor man, Fear God... God's laws are supreme over all others...

John



jstbeliev -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/16/2008 4:40:01 PM)

I agree with Ps103 and wholeheartedly with gengal....

To mcfatty---you have to put yourself in the artists' shoes. I am a writer of two published books circa 2005 and 2008. I have excerpts on websites and my books are available on several websites. Now, say that I just decide that I don't want my books available online anymore and I ask the agencies and other affiliates to take my books down? What if someone wants to buy my book anyway because they really love it and find a way to get the book from the website and downloads it and then starts to sell it? Is that ethical? I have written those books...ME...from my own hand and it was not easy with life happening, bills, kids, school, work....it is not right for anyone to take someone else's work and distribute it as they please...that is why the laws became enacted to protect artists like me from people, who think like you, who think it is okay to steal artists(writers,painters,singers, any owner of a work) work and sell it. And it is even worse if one is a believer because judgment begins first in the house of God. So please think of us, the artists and do the right thing.

God bless ya,



Rufas2000 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/16/2008 8:20:11 PM)

quote:

it is not right for anyone to take someone else's work and distribute it as they please...that is why the laws became enacted to protect artists like me from people, who think like you, who think it is okay to steal artists(writers,painters,singers, any owner of a work) work and sell it.


That would be a good point except our copyright laws are designed to protect big media conglomerates and not writers, painters or singers. Many creators have limited control over their work.

I made my point and am willing to let it stand as it is. Huge companies should not have their rights taken away because they are huge companies but lets call a spade a spade. The copyright law just as often as not works against writers, painters and singers because again they don't own the rights to their own work.

For example: many major recording artists have had albums released against their wishes (usually right after they switch labels and mostly they are "best ofs") because the record company owns the rights to their music and not the artist. The record company is well within their legal rights to do so but is it really the right thing to do?

And I have to say I think Mcfatty's position was a bit misrepresented here. He is wondering where the fair use doctrine issue ends, not saying that stealing from artists is OK.



Ps103 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/16/2008 10:46:57 PM)

quote:

I made my point and am willing to let it stand as it is. Huge companies should not have their rights taken away because they are huge companies but lets call a spade a spade. The copyright law just as often as not works against writers, painters and singers because again they don't own the rights to their own work.


That is not a fault of the copyright law, that is a fault of the contracts that their agents negotiated.



Rufas2000 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/16/2008 10:59:14 PM)

quote:

That is not a fault of the copyright law, that is a fault of the contracts that their agents negotiated.


Thats true but when it is said that the copyright law is there to protects painters, writers and musicians I think it should be pointed out that it isn't true. Painters, writers and musicians don't have powerful lobby groups in Washington pleading the case for their rights. Any protection they receive from copyright laws is incidental. If people want to claim that the copyright law is perfect and just then fine, perhaps it is. But lets understand who the law is designed to benefit and remember how Washington works.

I will concede though that if the big media companies got their way then fair use wouldn't exist, nor would CD burners, DVD burners or VCRs. I read where a Sony copyright lawyer claimed that customers do not have a legal right to make a back up copy of music they have bought for their own personal use. But again its all about politics. Take away fair use and angry voters are going to vote the bums out. There are far more consumers of art (thus many more voters) then artists.

Point in short: I strongly disagree with the idea that the copyright laws were created to protect artists. Doesn't make them unjust but does need to be considered in the discussion.

BTW: those agents have little choice but to negotiate these bad deals. The big record labels have the young artists right where they want them. It is what it is but I think these agents are doing the best they can (and young artists probably can't afford the best legal representation) so it isn't short sightedness on their part.



SteveSund -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/17/2008 3:58:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rufas2000

quote:

That is not a fault of the copyright law, that is a fault of the contracts that their agents negotiated.


Thats true but when it is said that the copyright law is there to protects painters, writers and musicians I think it should be pointed out that it isn't true. Painters, writers and musicians don't have powerful lobby groups in Washington pleading the case for their rights. Any protection they receive from copyright laws is incidental. If people want to claim that the copyright law is perfect and just then fine, perhaps it is. But lets understand who the law is designed to benefit and remember how Washington works.



BTW: those agents have little choice but to negotiate these bad deals. The big record labels have the young artists right where they want them. It is what it is but I think these agents are doing the best they can (and young artists probably can't afford the best legal representation) so it isn't short sightedness on their part.

If it isn't short sightedness, then what is it? How many negotiations have you been part of? I have several friends that are professional musicians. They are not stars, but they make a decent living. They have been able to do well by signing with smaller, independent labels.



Rufas2000 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/17/2008 4:16:30 PM)

quote:

If it isn't short sightedness, then what is it? How many negotiations have you been part of? I have several friends that are professional musicians. They are not stars, but they make a decent living. They have been able to do well by signing with smaller, independent labels.


You're right about the fact I haven't negotiated a deal. I got my info from several interviews with artists and music insiders. The smaller independent labels being viable enough to provide decent livings is a relatively new phenomenon. But as of right now if they want to be famous and really make the dough then they are going to have to get with a major label eventually. And those labels hold all the cards. But you are right about the music industry changing. The Internet has been wonderful in this regard.

Also, what do you consider a "decent living"? For me, at a minimum, its being able to meet your expenses without working a second job. They might be making a "decent living" but it may not be totally or even primarily because of their label arrangements. So their label deal is not providing a "decent living" if they need a second job. And, how much do they make off of live performances?

I say that because the goals of many music artists I'm sure include getting rid of the need for second jobs so they can concentrate on their true passion.

My basic point is that its easy to blame the little promoter, the agent who believes in an artist's dream and does the best he or she can with what they have to work with in order to get the ball rolling on that dream.



SteveSund -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/18/2008 6:02:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rufas2000

Also, what do you consider a "decent living"? For me, at a minimum, its being able to meet your expenses without working a second job. They might be making a "decent living" but it may not be totally or even primarily because of their label arrangements. So their label deal is not providing a "decent living" if they need a second job. And, how much do they make off of live performances?



They do well for live performances because they take home (minus expenses) whatever is made on ticket sales. Their label gets nothing, but also does little to promote live shows. As for "decent living", both are able to do what they do without any kind of second job. They are not affluent by any means, but they are able to pay the bills, support a family, and set aside some for retirement.



Rufas2000 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/18/2008 6:43:50 PM)

quote:

As for "decent living", both are able to do what they do without any kind of second job. They are not affluent by any means, but they are able to pay the bills, support a family, and set aside some for retirement.


Good for them, I hope they continue to be successful.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI