Hypothetical Situations about Copyright

Which of these do you find acceptable?

  • Total voters
    26
aimeeandbeatles

aimeeandbeatles

watermelon
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
20,112
Which ones would you consider acceptable? (Poll coming)

Note: I'm just using my name because it makes it easier to phrase.

Situation 1: A while ago, Aimee bought the disc. However, a neighbor steps on the disc. It's past warranty, so instead of buying a new one, she downlloads it.

Situation 2: Aimee is planning to buy the disc eventually. However, she doesn't have the money right away, so she gets impatient and downloads it. She still buys the disc.

Situation 3: Aimee wants an out-of-print material. However, she can't find it to buy anywheres, and it's unlikely to be re-released. So she downloads it.

Situation 4: Aimee reads the review of something, but can't find a demo/sample and it's sort of expensive. She downloads it to try it out. If she likes it, she'll buy it, if not, she'll delete it.

Situation 5: Aimee buys a game. However, she finds out it has a nasty DRM *after* opening the package. So she downloads.

Which of these do you find acceptable?
 
All is lawful unto me, but not all is expedient. (or is it the other way around :crazyeye:)

(I accidentally missvoted and didn't check every one. :( :blush:)
 
1 & 5 are definitely acceptable to me. I have no problems at all with them(DRM needs to die).

3 is a little iffier, but I voted for it anyway. Normally, out-of-print software is called abandonware, are is released for free, so in these cases there is no piracy at all, in any situation. If the product has not yet be released as abandonware... well, that is were the line blurs. You can usually download(for a fee) or purchase anything on the internet.

2 and 4 I did not vote for, for the simple fact that a large majority of people who say they will buy something after downloading, don't. If you to-goodness, honestly do, then we enter the blurry area again(I would still not consider it right in this case). The developer still profits in the end, but realistically you can't use something else first and then pay for it later. If you do, that's called a loan, which fines you interest, and this situation lacks any sort of interest.
 
This is the only constitutional justification for copyright law:
Article I said:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Click to expand...

I think that so-called artists should have to prove that their works are useful to society in order to get any copyright protections.
 
They're all fine, except #2.

Sarcastic realist with no money explanation: Why bother buying it if you've already got it?
Apologetic idealist pretending we all actually do what we should do explanation: You'll get it when you pay for it, no sooner.
 
I honestly don't see the point of downloading something, and then buying another version of the same thing that doesn't have any extra content. If you want to be moral, then you shouldn't have downloaded it in the first place.

Example four is especially stupid to me. " Hey, I really like that table in the display case. Why don't I take it home, test it out, and buy another copy if I like it. The original table I will of course burn after, because it's unethical to steal tables."
 
bob bobato said:
Example four is especially stupid to me. " Hey, I really like that table in the display case. Why don't I take it home, test it out, and buy another copy if I like it. The original table I will of course burn after, because it's unethical to steal tables."
Click to expand...

It costs money to produce a table. It doesn't cost anything to copy a file (or rather, costs a negligible amount)
 
ALL 5 :)

I honestly don't see the point of downloading something, and then buying another version of the same thing that doesn't have any extra content. If you want to be moral, then you shouldn't have downloaded it in the first place.
Click to expand...

To use it as a demo!

You've heard the word, "commitment", right? And surely you've worked out on your own how some people don't like to spend $50 on something if they're not going to like it?

physical item such as furniture != software :lol:

Here is a MUCH better comparison: So, you're going to the furniture store one day, and you see a bookshelf. You think to yourself, "Hmm, I like this bookshelf, but I'm not sure it will fit in my room." So what you do, see, what you do is measure it and see if it will fit.

This is basically what option 4 is. You're "measuring" the video game to see if you like it.
 
So if a copyrightholder's download you swiped causes your computer files to be permanently erased, that is ok, right? After all, those files cost nothing to copy and aren't tangible items like a table or something.
 
JollyRoger said:
So if a copyrightholder's download you swiped causes your computer files to be permanently erased, that is ok, right? After all, those files cost nothing to copy and aren't tangible items like a table or something.
Click to expand...

Only we're not permamently erasing the copyrightholder's whole computer :ack: :lmao:.
 
Well obviously the software manufacturer is not liable for any dammage caused by software he didn't sell to you. Unless it's freeware, in which case it depends mostly on the EULA.

For the reccord, I don't actually have an opinion on any of this. I'm just pointing out flaws in other people's arguements.
 
cardgame said:
Only we're not permamently erasing the copyrightholder's whole computer :ack: :lmao:.
Click to expand...
You are merely violating his property rights. You shouldn't complain if the same thing happens to you, especially if it is only a violation of intangible rights. The copyright holder is not coming over and sawing off the legs of your table - just messing with files that cost nothing to reproduce.
 
JollyRoger said:
You are merely violating his property rights. You shouldn't complain if the same thing happens to you, especially if it is only a violation of intangible rights. The copyright holder is not coming over and sawing off the legs of your table - just messing with files that cost nothing to reproduce.
Click to expand...

They cost my time to reproduce.

Once again your analogy fails
 
Yes it cost their time... to produce the original (1) music track. The rest are replicas
 
cardgame said:
Yes it cost their time... to produce the original (1) music track. The rest are replicas
Click to expand...
So replicas are worthless? Good - then you should have no issue with replicating your files that got deleted.

You are treating your time as a protectable property right, but not the artist's time. Obviously, the artist has earned compensation beyond the money he could get for the first track and copyright law recognizes that. Even with furtniture, the original designer often has a protectable intangible property right interest to make money off of replicas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Narz
Globalization
3 4 5
Replies
97
Views
8K
Samson
Samson
danjuno
  • Poll Poll
Will Trump's Tariffs Trigger Another Recession?
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
3K
GenMarshall
GenMarshall
Blake00
Lost Apolyton Mods/Scenarios/Maps
Replies
2
Views
416
Vuldacon
Vuldacon
Noam Braumsky
Colossal Deity AI Snowball
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Yzman
Yzman
Blake00
The Great Library Reborn - Civ3 Scenario/Mod Preservation Project Log
Replies
5
Views
1K
Blake00
Blake00
Back
Top Bottom