Quote:
Originally Posted by pdurrant
What a lot of questions.
Distributing multiple digital copies is worse.
|
So if they're not equally bad, is it the number of copies distributed that makes a difference?
Quote:
|
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.
|
How about this: I have bought various CDs from Amazon as gifts--shipped to me and then given, not sent direct to the recipients. When Amazon began its AutoRip program, they added mp3 versions of all these CDs to my account for downloading. Was I supposed to refuse to download and/or stream these mp3 files in order to be ethical? I wonder how many people have complained to Amazon that they have infringed copyright by providing illicit copies.
Quote:
|
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.
|
But I'm not talking about rare items necessarily; I'm talking about mass-produced items in a format that has become outdated. Maybe out of print and now unavailable for purchase in any form. Maybe of dubious monetary value now, but still--is one really supposed to just destroy it?
I just think that the issue is not as black and white as some would make it.