Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unofficial or doubtfully official YouTube channels post an ethical dilemma for video watchers, especially those searching for videos that are highly rare, out of production, or foreign (and hence do not have airing rights). Among these are most of the British documentaries, 1990's Eurodance music videos, and old TV shows that most people apparently forgot about. Simply viewing them may be legal, but unethical. What is your opinion of this content uploaded without the authorization of the copyright owners?
How can it possibly be unethical to look at something that is being presented for public view??
Let me pose a related question: Is it unethical to look something up on Wikipedia, if you do not respond to their call for donations?
Or, is it unethical to withhold or obstruct from public view something that has been created for the purpose of expanding culture or knowledge or wisdom?
Central issue: Is Copyright a legal or an ethical issue? Or, are they necessarily the same thing? Is everything legal also ethical, and vice versa? Is it ethical to buy alcohol on Sunday in some states and not others? Or gamble? Or fish? Or drive 70 mph? Or get an abortion?
I'm going to watch the Spurs game tonight, online, because I don't have cable. I have no way of knowing whether the website is legal or not, nor even what country's laws have jurisdiction over its dissemination, and certainly no competence to judge whether any restrictive laws have force. Is that ethical?
Is it unethical to show someone an unofficial posted video, with the situation that the person with whom the video was shared then goes and buys the song/movie/show (DVD) because they enjoyed said content? This is denoting a natural situation in real life (I'm sure it happens everyday, but you can't track that kind of thing), not as a scripted response to the OP.
Biggest scam ever pulled on humanity was to remove the true freedom of information from it. But this goes along with any freedom removed, or twisted in freedom look alike, an ersatz.
As the basic, the very very cornerstone of humanity, ALL information should be free/readily available to anyone who wants to obtain it.
Biggest scam ever pulled on humanity was to remove the true freedom of information from it. But this goes along with any freedom removed, or twisted in freedom look alike, an ersatz.
As the basic, the very very cornerstone of humanity, ALL information should be free/readily available to anyone who wants to obtain it.
I think that depends on how you define information.
I think that if as a species or culture or population we appreciate artists actually making art, that value needs to be expressed to the artists in the form of currency. I also hate how many agencies exist to stand in the middle and intercept as much as possible from the artists. If we classify creative works as "free information" then we are discouraging creative people from spending their time doing creative things. It is why many artists, like me, have little faith in making things for a living and instead sit at desks earning a paycheck.
If people like art, they should support artists. Not steal from them. That applies not only to paintings and sculpture, but to literature, theatrical production, music, etc.
Now I'm not saying that I don't appreciate Youtube. But if I value the creative contribution of some band or something, I make sure to buy their material. After I have paid money for it, I don't feel guilty if my thoughts on social media are best expressed by a snipped from a show or song and I share a vid to get my idea across. When I go to a concert, and buy $200 worth of merchandise, not to mention multiple copies in multiple formats of every release, I feel no guilt when I relive a favorite moment from a show on Youtube.
I also think it's a tough call when content is locked down and not viewable anywhere else. I would happily pay to see some of the music videos I grew up with in the 90's, but often enough they can't be found anywhere but Youtube. Until MTV's people or whoever comes along and gets it removed. It makes me very sad when art is not available for enjoyment in any fashion, even with a price. As sad as locking the Mona Lisa up in a dark basement for all eternity never to be seen again. Which raises the next question...is it ethically wrong for entities like say Viacom to shelve such content and demand that no copies be viewable on the internet or anywhere else, indefinitely? Are they stealing art from society, effectively?
most everyone I know -thinks if they see a public video on youtube it is public,,,, not many of us care if someone wants to control it,,,and I find some things ridiculous
now, I have downloaded some cooking videos , edited off the advertisement and played them back in a place of business...
How can it possibly be unethical to look at something that is being presented for public view??
And in not very good quality!!
Who cares who watches what!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
