View Single Post
Old 03-02-2015, 01:15 PM   #290
Ghitulescu
Fanatic
Ghitulescu ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ghitulescu ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ghitulescu ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ghitulescu ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ghitulescu ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ghitulescu ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ghitulescu ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ghitulescu ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ghitulescu ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ghitulescu ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ghitulescu ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 563
Karma: 403106
Join Date: Aug 2014
Device: PRS-T1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catlady View Post
But since we know ignorance is not a defense, shouldn't the potential buyer at, say, a garage sale, require the seller to prove or swear that the bin of LPs and VHS tapes have not been digitized and no copies live on the seller's computer? How come that garage sale buyer can blithely assume the seller hasn't infringed copyright by keeping a copy? But if a person downloads something from the Web, he or she is supposed to inquire as to copyright status, rights holders, etc.?

Ethically, why shouldn't the buyer have the same responsibility in both instances? Why should a buyer assume a greater responsibility when the format is digital?
Have you read my message?
If the buyer has the originals, he shouldn't care what the seller does.
Ghitulescu is offline   Reply With Quote