[molman]

Originally Posted by Harmon

No, it's more than philosophy, at least in the US where the copyright laws are grounded in a Constitutional provision that strongly implies the need for an element of public benefit that is increasingly missing from the laws Congress has passed.

And although you are correct that the effect of the laws seems to be that a creator can decide NEVER to sell a creation, I wasn't making a legal argument. I was pointing out that there is a moral basis for breaching the law, in that there is an implicit deal underlying the law which creators who wish to make a moral, rather than a legal, appeal cannot ignore.

I hear what you are saying, but if I appreciate your system correctly there is no 'deal' beyond the interpretation of your legal system which manifests in the position you find your selves in. Obviously you are welcome to interpret yourself all you like, but it is still a philosophical position if it doesn't match reality.

For reference the constitutional clause I believe you are referring to is;

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.

Originally Posted by Harmon

Not as I read the US law. There is an assumed harm, resulting in statutory damages, in the case of any distribution, even if there is no actual provable harm. (I believe that this is only if the copyright has been registered, though.)

But if there is no distribution, the law does not prevent copying of legally obtained files, and arguably does not prevent copying of illegally obtained files. This is less clear, though, and it does appear that the courts have the authority to order the destruction of copies of illegally obtained files.

I understand the copying of legally obtained files (backup, fair use etc) though if it has DRM I assume you then run afowl of the DCMA, but you are telling me that if I have a HDD of lets say DVD Movies I've ripped by borrowing them from the Video Store, and I only use these for personal use (no distrubution) that within the current US framework I have no liability for this infringement?

Originally Posted by Harmon

I think it has a lot to do with the instinctive sense that many people have that the law as presently constituted is unfair. And once people decide a law is unfair, they start avoiding, evading, & ignoring it whenever practical

I find the area of where law (which often moves slowly) fails to match the sentiment of societies at large an interesting junction.