An ethical question?

Question

Is watching copy-right material on youtube through streaming video synonymous to downloading copy-right material off of a torrent site and saving it on your computer?

What's the difference if there is one?

Answer 1

For the purposes of your question, I will assume that you mean copyrighted material which has been placed online without permission from the copyright holder.

Here is my analysis...

While you ARE making an ephemeral (temporary) copy onto your computer while watching YouTube videos, the material is not available to the average user to further exploit by recopying, editing, burning onto a disc, etc.

The YouTube TOU (terms of use) are very specific in that copyrighted information may not be uploaded without the permission of the copyright holder(s). (link below)

The DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) provides a Safe Harbor for those who unknowingly host illegal materials on their websites. The "Notice and Takedown" provisions of the DMCA allow the true copyright holders a way to quickly remove copyrighted materials. That is what the law provides and those are the rights and protections given to you as regards copyrighted materials.

It's true that Google/YouTube is being sued by Viacom. However, it's also true that under the DMCA, YouTube does have safe harbor protection. I predict that the Viacom lawsuit will eventually be settled or dismissed. The lawsuit seems to be for other strategic purposes of the recording industry rather than for the purpose of seeking a monetary remedy for a specific harm suffered by Viacom.

Therefore, as a viewer, you would claim derivative protection under the safe harbor provision of the DMCA for viewing a YouTube video that was improperly posted. After all, you wouldn't even have an actual accessible copy of the improper video on your computer once you had terminated your connection to the YouTube site (unless you have saved the content through a 3rd party program... which, by the way, is forbidden under the YouTube TOU)

You mentioned Torrent sites, but you must actually specify which Torrent site(s) you are talking about. There are some Torrent sites which seem to make every effort to comply with the DMCA (i.e. BitTorrent) while there are some Torrent sites (i.e. PirateBay) which operate on the outer edges of copyright respectability.

Probably you would have safe harbor protection if you stay with Torrent sites which appear to comply with the DMCA and applicable copright laws. If the downloads that you find seem "too good to be true", probably they are, and you should find a more trusted site for your Torrent downloads. No reasonable person would expect to be able to download an entire new album of a well known group for free. So, if you do this, and get caught, you will have to pay. On the other hand, if you have hundreds of downloaded videos which are completely legal for you to have downloaded, but you have one single video among them which has been improperly uploaded, it will be very difficult (almost impossible) to get a judgment against you.

For example, if someone on a street corner offered to sell you a set of expensive chrome rims for $50, would you buy them? or would you say to yourself, "Self, this sounds too good to be true, I'll bet they're stolen." When the police come calling and asked how you could possibly believe that something that cost $2,000 could possibly be sold for $50. It's doubtful that you will avoid a criminal charge of knowingly trafficking in stolen property. You would need a very good lawyer at that time...

~Mr. Schmegicky

p.s. Don't rely on the advice of strangers regarding complex legal issues. Seek the advice of a lawyer to answer your specific legal questions.

Answer 2

Hi In case 1 YouTube is subject to fines. In case 2 YOU are subject to fines. But YouTube has pulled or payed for the videos that are copyrighted. No worries just watching.

Answer 3

Simply put, I would respect the copy right laws. When in doubt, keep yuor self out of trouble and don't copy copyrighted material

Answer 4

it is not black and white. that's extremely gray while you're raped as an occasion, abortion must be a decision. The fetus isn't even developed yet even though it remains existence. So that could be a ethical component for a rap sufferer to do. the youngster would not ought to enhance up understanding his/mom would not want them and his/her father became a rapist. it is going to be a decision for this reason. If abortion is used as beginning administration, i in my view think of that's extremely incorrect and extremely unethical. ought to this be a decision? confident, however the guy who does this must be publicly properly-referred to as an exceptionally immoral and unethical individual. faith shouldn't additionally be a factor of the communicate. As a non non secular individual, I should not be compelled to do something by utilising a faith that i do no longer think in or practice. that must be unethical as properly.