A Priest’s Moral Analysis of Vaccines
#21
(03-11-2021, 01:18 PM)Bonaventure Wrote:
(03-11-2021, 01:09 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: Here are summaries of actual cases, with cases cited, that involved a variety of different examples of fair use doctrine: 
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fa...rnet_cases

Copyright and fair use doctrine are a gray area in the law.  Confident assertions that a forum member has actually violated US copyright law are uncalled for, at least in this situation.

Not one of those cases holds that copying an entire online article and pasting it in its entirety to another online forum constitutes 'fair use.'

Do a little bit more research than simply relying upon Copyright Office circulars.

Further, understand that when the Copyright Office refers to works, that encompasses a wide range of copyrightable subject matter, including: text; audio; visual; audio/visual; 2D Art; 3D Art, etc.  In that regard, don't assume that what some "courts" found to be fair use with on type of subject matter will be the same for a different type of subject matter.

In the present context, we're talking about text, and text only.  When the entirety of that text is copy/pasted without permission, copyright infringement has occurred, and it would be a rare, rare case that fair use is found.

I never said they did, nor did I fail to do research.  I've read the federal law on copyright before.  The Righthaven, LLC v Jama case that I also posted a link to did involve an entire article that was used by the non-copyright owner.  The court found in favor of the defendant under fair use doctrine.  And that's the problem here: there are too many variables that a court would need to take into consideration before it'd rule whether or not this particular instance was fair use.  I'd be happy to argue that it was.  How the court would actually rule is something I make no claim about but, again, confidently asserting this thread involved clear copyright infringement is not the case.  If you disagree, cite your own case(s) to that effect.  We can then consider the facts of that case and the specific legal reasoning, then apply them to this situation.
"For the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but traditionalists."
- Pope St. Pius X

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables."
- 2 Timothy 4:3-4

"Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity."
- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
Reply
#22
(03-11-2021, 01:31 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: ...confidently asserting this thread involved clear copyright infringement is not the case. 

And yet you confidently assert that fair use would apply. That could be a costly, costly mistake, when the alternative is to simply not copy/past text from entire articles but instead provide a link to said article. Seems quite an easy option to avoid any and all allegations of copyright infringement, but then again, there's a reason why lawyers are always in business.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Bonaventure's post:
  • SeekerofChrist
Reply
#23
(03-11-2021, 01:35 PM)Bonaventure Wrote:
(03-11-2021, 01:31 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: ...confidently asserting this thread involved clear copyright infringement is not the case. 

And yet you confidently assert that fair use would apply.  That could be a costly, costly mistake, when the alternative is to simply not copy/past text from entire articles but instead provide a link to said article.  Seems quite an easy option to avoid any and all allegations of copyright infringement, but then again, there's a reason why lawyers are always in business.

You're right, I was too confident in asserting that fair use would apply.  I think a good case can be made but the courts would eventually decide.  I do stand by my claim that using an entire work, including whole text-based articles, can fall under fair use doctrine and that I think a case could be made for that here.  However, you're also right we can best avoid any issues by not posting the text on the forum.
"For the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but traditionalists."
- Pope St. Pius X

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables."
- 2 Timothy 4:3-4

"Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity."
- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
Reply
#24
Holy schnikies!!!  I'll never copy/paste another article here again, just to be "safe"!  I'll just...well....I don't know just what I'll do.

From "Specific Rules" listed here https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/bbrules.php  "2. Don't just post URLs with no summaries, no effort at explaining what the URLs link to. Preferred is the posting of entire articles (or, if they're extremely long, their relevant parts) -- and especially preferred is the posting of articles accompanied by some of your own commentary. It makes things much more interesting and stimulates responses! And please cite sources!"

I wonder if anyone has anything to say about the content of the article linked and subsequently copied and pasted?
“But all will be well, and all will be well, and every kind of thing will be well.” ~Julian of Norwich

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug."~Mark Knopfler (?)

"No matter who you are somebody thinks you're a heretic. Wear it like a badge of honor........... :LOL:"~Silouan

The fact that I "like" a post is not necessarily an endorsement or approval of its content.
Reply
#25
VoxClamantis, wasn't there a situation some years back where someone was using Fisheaters content without attribution?
Reply
#26
(03-11-2021, 01:51 PM)J Michael Wrote: Holy schnikies!!!  I'll never copy/paste another article here again, just to be "safe"!  I'll just...well....I don't know just what I'll do.

From "Specific Rules" listed here https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/bbrules.php  "2. Don't just post URLs with no summaries, no effort at explaining what the URLs link to. Preferred is the posting of entire articles (or, if they're extremely long, their relevant parts) -- and especially preferred is the posting of articles accompanied by some of your own commentary. It makes things much more interesting and stimulates responses! And please cite sources!"

I wonder if anyone has anything to say about the content of the article linked and subsequently copied and pasted?

Moral theology isn't my area of expertise.  I can only say that most of the Catholic commentary I've seen on the vaccines is that at least the two that don't use aborted baby remains are morally licit.  I have safety concerns about all the vaccines, given how quickly they were developed, so I'm quite hesitant for that reason to get one.  I might be forced to, though, for school in the Fall.
"For the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but traditionalists."
- Pope St. Pius X

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables."
- 2 Timothy 4:3-4

"Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity."
- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
Reply
#27
(03-11-2021, 01:57 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote:
(03-11-2021, 01:51 PM)J Michael Wrote: Holy schnikies!!!  I'll never copy/paste another article here again, just to be "safe"!  I'll just...well....I don't know just what I'll do.

From "Specific Rules" listed here https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/bbrules.php  "2. Don't just post URLs with no summaries, no effort at explaining what the URLs link to. Preferred is the posting of entire articles (or, if they're extremely long, their relevant parts) -- and especially preferred is the posting of articles accompanied by some of your own commentary. It makes things much more interesting and stimulates responses! And please cite sources!"

I wonder if anyone has anything to say about the content of the article linked and subsequently copied and pasted?

Moral theology isn't my area of expertise.  I can only say that most of the Catholic commentary I've seen on the vaccines is that at least the two that don't use aborted baby remains are morally licit.  I have safety concerns about all the vaccines, given how quickly they were developed, so I'm quite hesitant for that reason to get one.  I might be forced to, though, for school in the Fall.
Nor is moral theology my area of expertise.  I'm not sure I even have one anymore :-).

As for the use of aborted baby remains in the 2 vaccines you've referred to, there was some good discussion about that in at least one other thread, which of course, I can't seem to find right now!
“But all will be well, and all will be well, and every kind of thing will be well.” ~Julian of Norwich

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug."~Mark Knopfler (?)

"No matter who you are somebody thinks you're a heretic. Wear it like a badge of honor........... :LOL:"~Silouan

The fact that I "like" a post is not necessarily an endorsement or approval of its content.
Reply
#28
(03-11-2021, 01:57 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: Moral theology isn't my area of expertise.  I can only say that most of the Catholic commentary I've seen on the vaccines is that at least the two that don't use aborted baby remains are morally licit.  I have safety concerns about all the vaccines, given how quickly they were developed, so I'm quite hesitant for that reason to get one.  I might be forced to, though, for school in the Fall.

Which two didn't use aborted baby remains?

My understanding is...
1. that some of the vaccines used aborted baby remains in their development,
2. and that some of the vaccines used aborted baby remains in their testing,
3. but that none of the vaccines used aborted baby remains in neither their development nor their testing.

Is there a vaccine that was brought to market without the use of aborted baby remains in either its development or its testing?
[-] The following 1 user Likes ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident's post:
  • J Michael
Reply
#29
(03-11-2021, 02:21 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote:
(03-11-2021, 01:57 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: Moral theology isn't my area of expertise.  I can only say that most of the Catholic commentary I've seen on the vaccines is that at least the two that don't use aborted baby remains are morally licit.  I have safety concerns about all the vaccines, given how quickly they were developed, so I'm quite hesitant for that reason to get one.  I might be forced to, though, for school in the Fall.

Which two didn't use aborted baby remains?

My understanding is...
1. that some of the vaccines used aborted baby remains in their development,
2. and that some of the vaccines used aborted baby remains in their testing,
3. but that none of the vaccines used aborted baby remains in neither their development nor their testing.

Is there a vaccine that was brought to market without the use of aborted baby remains in either its development or its testing?

You might be right.  I'm not sure, since I've mostly shied away from getting one of these vaccines for safety reasons.  I didn't delve much into their actual moral permissiveness.  My understanding is two of them have a remote connection to abortion and one has a more direct link.  That's the extent of my actual knowledge.  I'm not eager to be what I think is essentially a guinea pig by taking one of these rushed development vaccines.
"For the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but traditionalists."
- Pope St. Pius X

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables."
- 2 Timothy 4:3-4

"Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity."
- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
Reply
#30
(03-11-2021, 02:25 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: You might be right.  I'm not sure, since I've mostly shied away from getting one of these vaccines for safety reasons.  I didn't delve much into their actual moral permissiveness.  My understanding is two of them have a remote connection to abortion and one has a more direct link.  That's the extent of my actual knowledge.  I'm not eager to be what I think is essentially a guinea pig by taking one of these rushed development vaccines.

It makes no difference in the assessment of our cooperation whether a vaccine was produced in baby remains or "merely" tested on baby remains. The difference is only the "icky" factor.
[-] The following 1 user Likes ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident's post:
  • J Michael
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)