Quote:
Originally Posted by Catlady
Do you see a difference between (1) copying an LP and retaining a digital copy for personal use, then donating or selling the LP and (2) copying and retaining an LP and distributing multiple digital copies of it? Are both equally "bad"?
Even if the buyer knows, or reasonably suspects, that the seller has retained a copy in digital form? Does it make a difference, ethically, if the original is donated instead of sold?
Must all originals be destroyed when one format shifts, if retaining them is impossible? Does that really make sense? Seems to me that it's not a good thing to advocate destroying cultural artifacts--that wholesale destruction is worse than some very slight harm to the copyright holders.
|
What a lot of questions.
Distributing multiple digital copies is worse.
If I suspected that someone was keeping a digital copy of something they were selling me, I wouldn't buy it. I don't see that it makes a difference whether the original is given away or sold.
Your last question is the one that I'm most conflicted about. And yes, I can see that in some cases (e.g. rare items) destruction would be causing more harm than good. If the original has significant monetary value, the obvious solution is to sell it and use the proceeds to obtain a new digital copy. If the original has little to no monetary value, perhaps the only wholly ethical option would be to return it to the copyright holder.