|
HarryT,
I'm confused. You claim to not be qualified to determine if what the blogger has done is morally wrong or not. However, you keep using the term "justified" and it's derivatives.
Use of the term justified, at least here in Australia, has no legal meaning. You can't be "justified" in committing copyright infringement. You are either guilty of it or not. The term justified only makes sense in an ethical or moral statement. As our legal system is based on the UK system I would imagine it is the same in the UK.
Eg: If you use the defence of "fair use" you are not justified in committing copyright infringement. Instead you are not guilty of committing the offence of copyright infringement.
I do not believe "I paid for the digital content via multiple sources and now that I temporarily live in Germany I can no longer access my paid for content so I decided to access it via a piracy site" has ever been tested as a defence against the charge of copyright infringement in a court of law. Therefore by your own reasoning, as evidenced in your comments to RSE, you can't say if what the blogger has done is in fact considered copyright infringement.
So either choose different wording or admit that you are making a moral judgement.
|