Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Because there is all the difference in the world between borrowing, buying, or giving away an existing copy of a book, and creating an additional copy of a book and distributing that additionalal copy without the permission of the copyright holder
|
But now you're twisting things as described. The scenario was loaning the
original copy of the CD--something they have every legal right to loan. The
additional copy was made for backup purposes--something they have also every legal right to do. As long as that original CD was loaned (and not given away or sold), I don't believe your assertion that it
inherently constitutes infringement holds any water. None whatsoever.
Besides. No one is really arguing what is or isn't infringement (in a rigidly legal, semantic sense). It's about harm. It's possible that someone (not me, of course, because I would never encourage, condone or suggest that anyone do anything illegal), can
technically infringe copyright and cause the same amount of harm to the creator--which is none--that you do when removing DRM. It is also possible that you, removing DRM, could do potentially even MORE harm to the creator by removing DRM than our hypothetical person might do by infringing copyright.
So it's not about legality, or morals, it's about you believing no one else but yourself has the integrity to "technically" break laws while retaining their "honesty." You assume the "best" in your own ability to do no harm and the "worst" in everyone else. You should think about not doing that any more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
As consumers demand the ability to do normal things with digital media, I think that pendulum will start to swing back.
|
I agree. And the "honesty/dishonesty" of the hypothetical people who were breaking those rules before that pendulum-swing happened will be utterly unaffected by such a legal change.