Quote:
Originally Posted by Katsunami
The point is that it can never ever be checked if I *did* keep a copy for myself.
|
This is an argument used by collectors of child pornography-yet they do get caught. Often it's by tracking the purchase/downloading of something illegal-but other times it's simply 'run across' by somebody checking their hard drive. Often a tech. I'll grant that a tech would have no way of knowing whether or not you'd already sold the books found still on your drive-but it'd be enough to raise suspicions & possibly get a warrant to seize your computer.
Personally I'm concerned about what's right & what's wrong-not about whether or not I can be caught. I guarantee that no matter who thinks "it's impossible to catch me" it's not-anybody can be caught although not everybody is. You can go with the odds (possibly 90% of US taxpayers get away with cheating on their income tax) or you can avoid the risk. (If you get audited you pay more-in time, worry, preparation, inconvenience-than you probably save in 10 years of cheating. And if you've been cheating then you'll pay even more. Finding a single instance causes the auditors to dig deeper-imagine being required to come up with receipts from 10 years ago!)
For now I'm going to see what happens with the case against ReDigi assuming it's appealed. The court's reasoning seems fatally flawed but that's JMO-an appellate judge (or higher) might believe otherwise. The kindest interpretation of the judge's decision is that he's hiding his real reason which might be the impossibility of ensuring, on a grand scale, that people aren't cheating. I've seen other lower court decisions based on this type of reasoning & all (that I know of) have been overturned on appeal. That's why lower courts are now coming up with 'excuses' to hide the real reason for their decision.
Difficulty of administering this is a problem-that can be solved by auditing the sellers' computers. Publishers (whether music or books) don't like this approach because legally they need to get a warrant. They'd much rather base their 'warrant' on something that's public such as the (re)sale. I can understand their desires-I simply don't see why the legal system should bow to them.