Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
Here's the line: Items 4, 5, 6 and 7 require a specific statement from the CD creator, stating that those actions are permissible. If you do not have that permission, you are not justified in taking those actions. And yes, they go for CDs and books.
(This assumes that the MP3s on iTunes and Amazon are legitimately obtained, of course.)
|
Interesting! That's a different place than I would have assumed. I'm glad we cleared that up.
So, you're drawing a distinction between someone performing the action of copying for themselves, and having a company do it for them. What is the relevant moral principle that you see in play here, the essential difference that makes that line?
What about the argument that this gives free MP3s to people who are tech-savvy enough to rip their own CDs, while giving less-tech-savvy types no alternative but to buy from a service? (Or go without, if no legal MP3 version is available). Is that a fair division?
(For the record, I'm not arguing whether you're right or wrong, I just want to feel out your views. These are not 'attack' questions, they're innocent.
