20th Century Fox has a Warning Screen Wiki: http://thefbiwarningscreens.wikia.com/wiki/20th_Century_Fox_Home_Entertainment_Warning_Screens I'm amazed that these warnings have become invisible to viewers or maybe the viewers just don't take the warnings seriously.
If I check out a DVD and watch it from my TV or burn it and watch it from my computer and don't sell it, I don't see the harm. The computer copy means I don't have to keep checking it out which I could. The point is, I'm not selling it, I'm viewing it as I would be if I checked it out again.
Whether or not there is actual harm is beside the point. There are copyright infringement laws in place, and we each must decide if we will obey those laws or not. Now, if you were to refrain from copying the DVD, and wanted to watch it again, you would need to check it out again from the library. This would help the library's circulation statistics, and would help to justify further purchases of DVDs or a particular genre of DVDs by that library. If the DVD fails to circulate adequately, the library may conclude its patrons do not want more of that genre of DVD, and will not purchase more, and may in fact weed the collection. Is that the intended result? There are various kinds of consequences to not following policies, rules, and laws, and we must realize that our choices and behaviors can have results that reach far beyond ourselves.
Is it copyright infringement if you do not plan to make a profit from said "ripped" item? I suppose copyright infringement is copyright infringement whether the individual plans on using the item for monetary gain. I guess the question might be for many people that know they shouldn't do it is,"How unethical is it if I just burn a copy for myself?"
I like your point about circulation statistics. I think if someone loves a DVD so much to the point where they want to watch several times, they should either purchase it or continue to check it out from the library so as to boost circulation statistics.
It is a good point, but what about an opposite situation: Maybe it's an item that can be checked out by others but since it's a DVD that is well liked and thus frequently re-checked out. Is it depriving someone else?
All this stuff about 'profit': Consider the idea of negative profit i.e. loss. Many people (including myself) argue that if you obtain a permanent copy of a recording you are obligated to pay a certain cost (14.99, 19.99, whatever the place you buy the DVD from charges) to do so. If you acquire a copy for $0, you've made a profit of $14.99 or $19.99 because the money you would have had to spend on the DVD you can now spend elsewhere. I know the financial component is sort of hidden because you aren't actually handed $14.99 in cash, but you are still gaining economically from getting a recording for free even if you don't resell it.
But one would not scan a book for several reasons: it is too labor intensive, it costs too much per page, writers don't make as much money as hollywood stars and rock stars, so you would be taking their livelihood away by not purchasing a book; but checking a book out from the library, you are not buying the writer's book, either. Since Hollywood or Bollywood or Dollywood are all collaborative and run by businessmen, the corporation behind the star has much more to do with their livelihood and how much they make than the consumer as compared to the bookbuyer, who has a much greater impact on a writer's life and livelihood. Just some thoughts for discussion; personally, I don't burn , rip, or copy and I'm trying to understand why I don't see it as a crime. I think the bulk of people who burn, rip, copy are much worse off than the artists who have gotten to the point of being in a movie or recording something sold to millions; so there's that aspect....
I wonder why you include the amount of money made by the creators of different media (whether movies, music, or books) in your calculation of whether or not copying said media is wrong. "writers don't make as much money as hollywood stars and rock stars", "Since Hollywood or Bollywood or Dollywood are all collaborative and run by businessmen, the corporation behind the star has much more to do with their livelihood and how much they make than the consumer". It would seem to me that copyright laws should be obeyed (and enforced) in the same way across genres, regardless of the identity (or income) of the creator. If it isn't ok to copy the work of an individual, I don't see how it would be ok to rip off the work of a corporation.
Maybe that's the difference between why ethics don't always match up with laws and policy. If laws are sometimes passed or not passed via the help of lobbying, then there might be greater protections for those corporate entities. Perhaps this can explain why an individual may not feel it's wrong to copy a work for personal use.
I was rather surprised at the responses of the students from Yale. Evidently they don't have tutorials like the ones available to TWU online students that discuss plagiarism, copyright infringement and such. I also don't think many of them have seen the add that is at the beginning of many of the DVDs that tells them that copying, ripping,or downloading a movie, music, and such is theft. I used to see such ads on VHS tapes all the time. I don't see them on DVDs much any more but that doesn't change the fact that there are some pretty hefty fines in store for those that break this law. What I'd really like to know is if there are any fines levied upon the library where the person checked out the movie or CD.
I would be surprised if the Yale students didn't have something like the ethics tutorial. Perpahs they just took it once, or perhaps they've had to do it too many times. After all, that's been a requirement pretty much every semester I've been enrolled online at TWU.
I thought it was interesting that the students knew it wasn't "right"--especially after making the question more specific-- but none said it was wrong.
It seemed like they were trying to justify the action because "it doesn't hurt anyone."
The concept that a person can do anything they like as long as they are not hurting anyone seems to be very prevalent today. One of the issues with everything being "free" on the internet is most people never stop to consider if it is copyrighted or actually free for the taking. It is rather a slippery slope if one isn't careful. I'm more inclined to think that the Yale student attitude seems to be that if they are not physically harming someone then there isn't a problem with taking whatever they want.
I work in a public library and there is a family who I feel are "ripping" our system's entire CD collection. Our PAC allows patrons to put twenty items on hold per card, but patrons can only check ten CDs out at a time. This family has four card holders, and each put twenty CDs on hold at a time. Every few days, they will come in and check ten of their twenty holds out each. Later in the day, they will come back to the library, return the forty CDs they had checked out and then each will check the remaining ten CD holds out. I can imagine what else one would do with forty music CDs in one day besides rip them onto their computer. I can't be alright with this, it seems very wrong. That's a lot of music they are getting without having to pay for it, and this has been going on for months. At the same time, I'm not sure there is anything we can do about it. We have no hard proof that this is what they are doing and there is nothing in our library policy about checking CDs out and ripping them to your computer.
We have run into the same issue at our library. We don't have a policy for it either. We really can't control what patrons do with items once they leave the library. All we can do is make them pay for an item if they lose it or damage it.
Laura & Ann: Our library also has this same problem. To me, it's similar to people who take journals or books home and then make copies. We can't stop that. Frustrating.
I was always told when I starting working at the library that the reason this shouldn't be done is because the artist is entitled to royalties from the sale of the album, but if someone is just "ripping" it or copying it that they do not receive any credit. Personally that made feel bad since I put myself in the artist position and realized that I would feel cheated knowing that people could copy my music without even paying for it. I have tried to tell my children that over the years since I know that there are so many places to download free music that may not be completely legal.
I don't think that anyone would ever entirely try to retire from royallties, unless they made the next "great work". Speaking from a legal point of view, one should never make copies of things that might take away compensation from another person. But, it is really all just a matter of money isn't it? Proper compensation for other people's work is what would normally happen in the age before computers. You would go to a blacksmith and pay him for a sword. Well now you can just print a sword with these new printers if you have someone's sword blueprints. You could copy the blueprints illegally and get a nice sword, but then you might of taken some of that person's business. Even more so if you start selling them.
JC: I was surprised how many students actually did not think burning a CD borrowed from the library is wrong. I'm sure I understand why they responded as they did. However, It is illegal to copy materials belonging to someone else whether provided by the library or other organizations.
Crystal, this is exactly the issue, I think. I sometimes wonder if my ethics or the ethics of my society as a whole are colored by my circumstances and environment. I live in a capitalist society, so perhaps another monetary system would breed different beliefs. This might be why there is such an issue between the US and other western countries and China over copyright and intellectual property issues. Still, there seems to be a fine line between excuse and explanation.
I agree with what has been said about trivial legality and excuse versus explanation. I believe that our society (capitalist or not) ties morality to legality. For instance, one of the questions that Dr. Akin posted asked something along the lines of whether or not people see murder as wrong because it is against the law rather than something they feel is morally unjust. While I truly believe that murder is unethical (regardless of the law), there are other laws like using a fake name on the Internet that I do not feel hold ethical implications because I believe in my own right to be private. (And yes, this is against the law -- read here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030).
For some, the fact that something is illegal is enough to keep them from doing it. Others figure they will just take their chances.
I agree with the comments above, but I would love to play the devil's advocate for a moment. Is the situation the same in an instance where the music being ripped is in the public domain? For instance, classical music recordings are often found in libraries and a good deal of the music is public domain. Is there a responsibility to the recording artist/publisher in this case? The "artist" is no longer living, so is it unfair to them? Does the public domain status only apply to the print copies of the music and not the sound recordings?
20th Century Fox has a Warning Screen Wiki: http://thefbiwarningscreens.wikia.com/wiki/20th_Century_Fox_Home_Entertainment_Warning_Screens
ReplyDeleteI'm amazed that these warnings have become invisible to viewers or maybe the viewers just don't take the warnings seriously.
As a child you are inundated with warnings left and right. When I was younger, even mattress tags sounded serious.
DeleteIf I check out a DVD and watch it from my TV or burn it and watch it from my computer and don't sell it, I don't see the harm. The computer copy means I don't have to keep checking it out which I could. The point is, I'm not selling it, I'm viewing it as I would be if I checked it out again.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not there is actual harm is beside the point. There are copyright infringement laws in place, and we each must decide if we will obey those laws or not.
DeleteNow, if you were to refrain from copying the DVD, and wanted to watch it again, you would need to check it out again from the library. This would help the library's circulation statistics, and would help to justify further purchases of DVDs or a particular genre of DVDs by that library. If the DVD fails to circulate adequately, the library may conclude its patrons do not want more of that genre of DVD, and will not purchase more, and may in fact weed the collection. Is that the intended result?
There are various kinds of consequences to not following policies, rules, and laws, and we must realize that our choices and behaviors can have results that reach far beyond ourselves.
Is it copyright infringement if you do not plan to make a profit from said "ripped" item? I suppose copyright infringement is copyright infringement whether the individual plans on using the item for monetary gain. I guess the question might be for many people that know they shouldn't do it is,"How unethical is it if I just burn a copy for myself?"
DeleteJill,
DeleteI like your point about circulation statistics. I think if someone loves a DVD so much to the point where they want to watch several times, they should either purchase it or continue to check it out from the library so as to boost circulation statistics.
It is a good point, but what about an opposite situation: Maybe it's an item that can be checked out by others but since it's a DVD that is well liked and thus frequently re-checked out. Is it depriving someone else?
DeleteAll this stuff about 'profit': Consider the idea of negative profit i.e. loss. Many people (including myself) argue that if you obtain a permanent copy of a recording you are obligated to pay a certain cost (14.99, 19.99, whatever the place you buy the DVD from charges) to do so. If you acquire a copy for $0, you've made a profit of $14.99 or $19.99 because the money you would have had to spend on the DVD you can now spend elsewhere. I know the financial component is sort of hidden because you aren't actually handed $14.99 in cash, but you are still gaining economically from getting a recording for free even if you don't resell it.
DeleteIn my opinion, burning a CD is comparable to scanning an entire library book. It would be considered copyright infringement.
ReplyDeleteGood analogy, Rebecca!
DeleteBut one would not scan a book for several reasons: it is too labor intensive, it costs too much per page, writers don't make as much money as hollywood stars and rock stars, so you would be taking their livelihood away by not purchasing a book; but checking a book out from the library, you are not buying the writer's book, either. Since Hollywood or Bollywood or Dollywood are all collaborative and run by businessmen, the corporation behind the star has much more to do with their livelihood and how much they make than the consumer as compared to the bookbuyer, who has a much greater impact on a writer's life and livelihood. Just some thoughts for discussion; personally, I don't burn , rip, or copy and I'm trying to understand why I don't see it as a crime. I think the bulk of people who burn, rip, copy are much worse off than the artists who have gotten to the point of being in a movie or recording something sold to millions; so there's that aspect....
ReplyDeleteI wonder why you include the amount of money made by the creators of different media (whether movies, music, or books) in your calculation of whether or not copying said media is wrong. "writers don't make as much money as hollywood stars and rock stars", "Since Hollywood or Bollywood or Dollywood are all collaborative and run by businessmen, the corporation behind the star has much more to do with their livelihood and how much they make than the consumer". It would seem to me that copyright laws should be obeyed (and enforced) in the same way across genres, regardless of the identity (or income) of the creator. If it isn't ok to copy the work of an individual, I don't see how it would be ok to rip off the work of a corporation.
DeleteMaybe that's the difference between why ethics don't always match up with laws and policy. If laws are sometimes passed or not passed via the help of lobbying, then there might be greater protections for those corporate entities. Perhaps this can explain why an individual may not feel it's wrong to copy a work for personal use.
DeleteI was rather surprised at the responses of the students from Yale. Evidently they don't have tutorials like the ones available to TWU online students that discuss plagiarism, copyright infringement and such. I also don't think many of them have seen the add that is at the beginning of many of the DVDs that tells them that copying, ripping,or downloading a movie, music, and such is theft.
ReplyDeleteI used to see such ads on VHS tapes all the time. I don't see them on DVDs much any more but that doesn't change the fact that there are some pretty hefty fines in store for those that break this law.
What I'd really like to know is if there are any fines levied upon the library where the person checked out the movie or CD.
I was really surprised their responses as well! Many of them didn't seem to know or care whether or not is was ethical.
DeleteI would be surprised if the Yale students didn't have something like the ethics tutorial. Perpahs they just took it once, or perhaps they've had to do it too many times. After all, that's been a requirement pretty much every semester I've been enrolled online at TWU.
DeleteI thought it was interesting that the students knew it wasn't "right"--especially after making the question more specific-- but none said it was wrong.
ReplyDeleteIt seemed like they were trying to justify the action because "it doesn't hurt anyone."
Melinda,
DeleteThe concept that a person can do anything they like as long as they are not hurting anyone seems to be very prevalent today. One of the issues with everything being "free" on the internet is most people never stop to consider if it is copyrighted or actually free for the taking. It is rather a slippery slope if one isn't careful. I'm more inclined to think that the Yale student attitude seems to be that if they are not physically harming someone then there isn't a problem with taking whatever they want.
I work in a public library and there is a family who I feel are "ripping" our system's entire CD collection. Our PAC allows patrons to put twenty items on hold per card, but patrons can only check ten CDs out at a time. This family has four card holders, and each put twenty CDs on hold at a time. Every few days, they will come in and check ten of their twenty holds out each. Later in the day, they will come back to the library, return the forty CDs they had checked out and then each will check the remaining ten CD holds out. I can imagine what else one would do with forty music CDs in one day besides rip them onto their computer. I can't be alright with this, it seems very wrong. That's a lot of music they are getting without having to pay for it, and this has been going on for months.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, I'm not sure there is anything we can do about it. We have no hard proof that this is what they are doing and there is nothing in our library policy about checking CDs out and ripping them to your computer.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteLaura,
DeleteWe have run into the same issue at our library. We don't have a policy for it either. We really can't control what patrons do with items once they leave the library. All we can do is make them pay for an item if they lose it or damage it.
Laura & Ann: Our library also has this same problem. To me, it's similar to people who take journals or books home and then make copies. We can't stop that. Frustrating.
DeleteI was always told when I starting working at the library that the reason this shouldn't be done is because the artist is entitled to royalties from the sale of the album, but if someone is just "ripping" it or copying it that they do not receive any credit. Personally that made feel bad since I put myself in the artist position and realized that I would feel cheated knowing that people could copy my music without even paying for it. I have tried to tell my children that over the years since I know that there are so many places to download free music that may not be completely legal.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that anyone would ever entirely try to retire from royallties, unless they made the next "great work". Speaking from a legal point of view, one should never make copies of things that might take away compensation from another person. But, it is really all just a matter of money isn't it? Proper compensation for other people's work is what would normally happen in the age before computers. You would go to a blacksmith and pay him for a sword. Well now you can just print a sword with these new printers if you have someone's sword blueprints. You could copy the blueprints illegally and get a nice sword, but then you might of taken some of that person's business. Even more so if you start selling them.
ReplyDeleteJC: I was surprised how many students actually did not think burning a CD borrowed from the library is wrong. I'm sure I understand why they responded as they did. However, It is illegal to copy materials belonging to someone else whether provided by the library or other organizations.
ReplyDeleteI think a parallel concept is what was stumping these students: Is illegal always unethical?
ReplyDeleteThere are many weird laws that make the most trivial things illegal. Maybe it depends on the impact it makes on the scale of positive to negative.
DeleteCrystal, this is exactly the issue, I think. I sometimes wonder if my ethics or the ethics of my society as a whole are colored by my circumstances and environment. I live in a capitalist society, so perhaps another monetary system would breed different beliefs. This might be why there is such an issue between the US and other western countries and China over copyright and intellectual property issues. Still, there seems to be a fine line between excuse and explanation.
DeleteI agree with what has been said about trivial legality and excuse versus explanation. I believe that our society (capitalist or not) ties morality to legality. For instance, one of the questions that Dr. Akin posted asked something along the lines of whether or not people see murder as wrong because it is against the law rather than something they feel is morally unjust. While I truly believe that murder is unethical (regardless of the law), there are other laws like using a fake name on the Internet that I do not feel hold ethical implications because I believe in my own right to be private. (And yes, this is against the law -- read here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030).
DeleteFor some, the fact that something is illegal is enough to keep them from doing it. Others figure they will just take their chances.
Thanks for that link; I had no idea that that was illegal.
DeleteI agree with the comments above, but I would love to play the devil's advocate for a moment. Is the situation the same in an instance where the music being ripped is in the public domain? For instance, classical music recordings are often found in libraries and a good deal of the music is public domain. Is there a responsibility to the recording artist/publisher in this case? The "artist" is no longer living, so is it unfair to them? Does the public domain status only apply to the print copies of the music and not the sound recordings?
ReplyDelete