Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
No, I was answering your question about whether or not it was copyright infringement. The answer to that is simple: yes, it is.
Whether or not it's morally wrong is an entirely different question, which I'm not qualified to answer.
|
Okay. It seemed from many of your responses in this thread that you were arguing it was morally wrong. My apologies for misunderstanding your position.
I guess from the letter of the law you are likely correct. However as no actual loss or harm has been done to the copyright holder, I would argue that in relation to the spirit of the law you are not correct.
Copyright law is primarily there to ensure the copyright holder is properly and fairly compensated for their work by having some control over the distribution of the work. It is not primarily to ensure the copyright holder controls every aspect of how the end user can access their paid for content. In this instance I believe the copyright holder will receive multiples of fair and proper compensation from the blogger. So if the blogger wants to access it via a piracy site after having fairly compensated the copyright holder for their work then I would argue the spirit of the law has not been broken and that is the important factor.
To argue that the letter of the law is being broken seems rather pedantic. And to further argue that the fact the blogger has properly compensated the copyright holder for the content is no justification for accessing the content via a pirate site rather than some legitimate channel seems a rather mean spirited position.