In Reply to: move on over to the pc audio forum posted by hermanesque on March 19, 2007 at 17:11:46:
Unethical or immoral? Yes, maybe that *is* a matter of "feel" -- and one that each one of us is permitted to feel out for himself. And that, in turn, is going to depend entirely on whether you or I feel that record companies should be reimbursed for their business efforts, that artists should earn royalties on their creations, etc.Illegal? Sorry, but that is decidedly *not* a matter of "feel." That is a matter of law to be decided by our federal courts -- including our Supreme Court (starting with its Sony Betamax decision 25 years ago and continuing right up through its Grokster/StreamCast decision of a couple years' ago). Granted, these decisions arise in technically different contexts and factual circumstances; but, they're all members of the same family: and copyright infringement -- like theft -- is not, at bottom, a legal issue that requires a lot of mental heavy lifting.
My observation: it strikes me that this whole thread is built around the entirely artificial distinction between who winds up with the original of a work and who winds up with its copy. Would anyone care to argue that it would be non-infringing for me to buy a CD and to rip and sell copies of it -- all the while keeping the original? Of course not, right? So, what's the difference? Why would a surprising (to me) number of you jump to my defense were I to rip a copy of a CD to keep for myself and to sell the original? At the end of both scenarios, we wind up in exactly the same place: with one purchased work and more than one end user of it. What difference does the "who's who?" spin on it make?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Why the "Who's Who" Distinction??? - Jim Hodgson 01:20:04 03/30/07 (0)