Quote:
Originally Posted by tompe
I do not see the reason either. Especially for your example number 5 were I assume the company distributing all the files have the right to do it to the persons that have bought the material (but the buyer has no expicit contractual right to download a copy). It is very hard to see why the downloading in that case should be morally different from making your own copy.
|
I think the issue there is the fact that, given the state of the market, you can't always "assume" the company in example 5 actually has the right to copy or distribute those files. Because it is so potentially easy for those files to be "leaked out," the creators (like JKR) often don't grant that right to anyone, or grant it only to a select few (mostly DRM'd distributors).
This is the overriding legal/ethical issue here, the concern that these copies will be out of the creators' control without their permission. That's the reason for these laws, and my personal stance on them. It's also up to the law to decide whether this needs to change, and amend the law to take a different stance with digital copies. Obviously, re: the RIAA vs Thomas case, they won't be doing that anytime soon.
It is up to the company copying and distributing files to prove that they have legal permission, which they can only obtain from the creator. Even if they are doing it for free, they need to demonstrate that they are doing it with permission. Otherwise, they (and you) can be contributing to releasing unauthorized copies, which is wrong.
Obviously, it's up to you to care one way or the other. But if that company is shown to have acted without permission, they are liable for copyright infringement. If a copy you obtained from them gets out, you are liable.