ethical dilemma

[Alex]

this happened to a friend of mine recently and whereas i don't aproove his course of action i think it would make for an interesting debate:

--
my friend works for a company that every now and then makes some training videos to show at lectures, etc... the problem is that these training videos unlawfully use copyrighted material. for example: they have a professional rip a motion picture DVD, extract certain scenes, chapters, etc and compile a shortened version for use with the training.
as far as i know, using material from any video would require consent from the authors and in the case of a large hollywood movie, from the company that owns the rights to it.

so recently a superior approached my friend and asked him whether or not he could do this task instead of the 3rd party professionals they hire. he happens to own a DVD burner and the necessary editing software, so he tentatively agrees.

he then asks about the legal parts and the company says they have been doing this for years and they will continue to do it illegally because of costs. they assure him nothing will happen to him.
--

i wouldn't have done it, plain and simple.

my friend decided to go ahead with it and did it anyway.

its a catch22 situation for him really because either he does it, and faces possible legal problems, or he doesn't do it and upsets his superiors. there is a good amount of remuneration involved as well, adding to his incentive to break the law.

what would you do? knowing that what you are about to do is illegal...

tough one eh?

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: franguinho
this happened to a friend of mine recently and whereas i don't aproove his course of action i think it would make for an interesting debate:

--
my friend works for a company that every now and then makes some training videos to show at lectures, etc... the problem is that these training videos unlawfully use copyrighted material. for example: they have a professional rip a motion picture DVD, extract certain scenes, chapters, etc and compile a shortened version for use with the training.
as far as i know, using material from any video would require consent from the authors and in the case of a large hollywood movie, from the company that owns the rights to it.

so recently a superior approached my friend and asked him whether or not he could do this task instead of the 3rd party professionals they hire. he happens to own a DVD burner and the necessary editing software, so he tentatively agrees.

he then asks about the legal parts and the company says they have been doing this for years and they will continue to do it illegally because of costs. they assure him nothing will happen to him.
--

i wouldn't have done it, plain and simple.

my friend decided to go ahead with it and did it anyway.

its a catch22 situation for him really because either he does it, and faces possible legal problems, or he doesn't do it and upsets his superiors. there is a good amount of remuneration involved as well, adding to his incentive to break the law.

what would you do? knowing that what you are about to do is illegal...

tough one eh?

he should at least got it from them in writing that they specifically requested that he do these illegal activities. it might not help him too much, but i'm sure it would help some.

the problem for him is IF the company is ever caught and all his bosses say, he did it without their permission, then he is really screwed.

 

[FoBoT]

he should have played dumb, like he wasn't capable of doing it

 

[puffff]

i'd probably do it. if anything bad came of it, im' sure the company would be the one in trouble, not me. why would the mpaa come after an individual with limited assets when they can go after a larger entity?

 

[iroast]

if it's illegal, don't do it. he'll be the scapegoat if the company gets caught.

or

have them write it down that he will not be held accountable?

 

[Alex]

Originally posted by: puffff
i'd probably do it. if anything bad came of it, im' sure the company would be the one in trouble, not me. why would the mpaa come after an individual with limited assets when they can go after a larger entity?

true true true! but like PlatinumGold said the company can just as easily shift the blame and say my friend did it without their consent and screw him big time!

he could have played dumb but like i said there was a good amount of money to receive in doing this job and in this case, money > ethics.

 

[Atomicus]

Professors photocopy sections out of textbooks all the time without receiving consent from the authors or publishers. Use for "educational" purposes doesn't justify it, but they still do it. No ramifications whatsoever because maybe people don't care since the use is for non-profit purposes and purely for education.

 

[Linflas]

These are in house videos that are not sold for profit? If so I really wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: Atomicus
Professors photocopy sections out of textbooks all the time without receiving consent from the authors or publishers. Use for "educational" purposes doesn't justify it, but they still do it. No ramifications whatsoever because maybe people don't care since the use is for non-profit purposes and purely for education.

rofl..how does the educational clause not justify their actions. it's an understood principle that professors can do this because the authors an dpublishers get money from the students who buy the books (or professors who buy the books). the whole purpose of that clause was for professors! Obviously, you missed the point on that one...

 

[DaiShan]

My previous employer asked me on two occasions during the course of my employment to do something that I considered unethical and probably illegal. Both times I said: "I'm sorry but I don't feel that this is an ethical or legal course of action and I'm not comfortable doing it" and both times they said "Oh Ok, I didn't even look at it that way" and the project was dropped.

 

[Alex]

Originally posted by: Linflas
These are in house videos that are not sold for profit? If so I really wouldn't have a problem with it.

that is so true...
it is a training video that apparently will be used on numerous occasions but will never be copied and is stored somewhere for future reference after they are done with it...

so its only 1 copy... and used strictly for educational/training purposes...

nice!! here's something i can tell my friend for peace of mind!

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: puffff
i'd probably do it. if anything bad came of it, im' sure the company would be the one in trouble, not me. why would the mpaa come after an individual with limited assets when they can go after a larger entity?

The OP makes it sound like his friend has the equipment at home, thus the company could start treating him as a contractor = bankruptcy for your friend OP.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: Linflas
These are in house videos that are not sold for profit? If so I really wouldn't have a problem with it.

yeah, as long as they aren't sold at all, i don't think there is a problem.

 

[Jzero]

If it's not being sold, and just being used one-off at lectures and training programs, I'd probably be OK with it.

It also depends how the material is used. For example, I would not be willing to take an instructional video on a topic and cut pieces of it out to use as an "abridged" instructional video of our own. But if we were developing our own instructional video and we were going to use a 30-second clip from a hollywood movie for comic relief or to demonstrate one of our points, I would probably be OK with that.

If I consider it unethical, I won't do it. I've had to decline things before. My boss doesn't give me any trouble about it.

 

[lokiju]

I was at Boston Market over the weekend with my fiancee the employees were all gathered around a table with a VCR and TV and it was some training video and through the whole video we heard they were playing very well known songs and clips from movies.


We were discussing how this had to be illegally done yet I'm sure that every Boston Market out there has the same training video with the same illegal media in it.

 

[puffff]

Originally posted by: franguinho

Originally posted by: puffff
i'd probably do it. if anything bad came of it, im' sure the company would be the one in trouble, not me. why would the mpaa come after an individual with limited assets when they can go after a larger entity?

true true true! but like PlatinumGold said the company can just as easily shift the blame and say my friend did it without their consent and screw him big time!

he could have played dumb but like i said there was a good amount of money to receive in doing this job and in this case, money > ethics.

it would be a lot more complicated than that i think. i mean, if i was at home, cut some clips and made a presentation, i wouldnt be doing anything illegal, as long as i'm not publicly showing it and attempting to use it for personal profit. when a company comes in and uses it for training videos or something, then that's illegal. if the OP is an employee of the company, i have a hard time seeing how blame could be shifted. if i walked into work one day suggesting we use some hollywood movie at our next promo, it's the company's responsibility to shoot down the idea based on legal grounds.

 

[waggy]

i would refuse. Then when the company fired me i would sue them!

 

[Kelemvor]

I'd contact the MPAA or whoever it is that manages that. Aren't there big rewards now for turning in people that do that? I'd call and say that he has info on a company that is doing that and has been for years but that since he'll get fired, he's need to get a nice big wards from it. Then turn them in and find a new job if you get fired.

 

[spacejamz]

just out of curiousity, how would this be different from the 'sampling' done on newer songs where they use 'small clips' of older songs in them?

IIRC, they don't need to get permission from the original artist because they only used a 'small portion' of the song... and in this case, the new artist is making money off the original material...if I am wrong on that, I apologize...

 

[otispunkmeyer]

get it in writing from the boss then do it

thats what id do, then if it gets found out, i have the proof to show that i was only doing as instructed

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: spacejamz

just out of curiousity, how would this be different from the 'sampling' done on newer songs where they use 'small clips' of older songs in them?

IIRC, they don't need to get permission from the original artist because they only used a 'small portion' of the song... and in this case, the new artist is making money off the original material...if I am wrong on that, I apologize...

sampling is fun. you can make some awesomely funny songs mxing samples, and alot of old house music has samples from other songs of the time cut up and mixed into another song....its great, but then it gets quite hard identifying certain tunes

 

[BriGy86]

some what related-

does "bundling" only have to do with physical stuff or is it also illegal to do it with services too?

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: franguinho
this happened to a friend of mine recently and whereas i don't aproove his course of action i think it would make for an interesting debate:

--
my friend works for a company that every now and then makes some training videos to show at lectures, etc... the problem is that these training videos unlawfully use copyrighted material. for example: they have a professional rip a motion picture DVD, extract certain scenes, chapters, etc and compile a shortened version for use with the training.
as far as i know, using material from any video would require consent from the authors and in the case of a large hollywood movie, from the company that owns the rights to it.

so recently a superior approached my friend and asked him whether or not he could do this task instead of the 3rd party professionals they hire. he happens to own a DVD burner and the necessary editing software, so he tentatively agrees.

he then asks about the legal parts and the company says they have been doing this for years and they will continue to do it illegally because of costs. they assure him nothing will happen to him.
--

i wouldn't have done it, plain and simple.

my friend decided to go ahead with it and did it anyway.

its a catch22 situation for him really because either he does it, and faces possible legal problems, or he doesn't do it and upsets his superiors. there is a good amount of remuneration involved as well, adding to his incentive to break the law.

what would you do? knowing that what you are about to do is illegal...

tough one eh?

The situation described MAY fall under the "fair use" provisions of copyright law. You'd have to check with a lawyer who specializes in copyright law, however, to be sure.

 

[TallBill]

I am the law.

 

[BriGy86]

Originally posted by: TallBill
I am the law.

and the law says...?