LogFAQs > #882040807

ParanoidObsessive posted...

To be fair, that's when you're getting into things like abandonware, where the inability to acquire the product in any other way starts to erode the idea of intellectual property ownership a bit, but even there there's a case to be made that, if the rights own actively doesn't WANT the product on the market (as opposed to merely allowing it to languish due to a passive lack of action), that they have the right to keep their product off the market, and no one else is justified in making it available because they feel the public is entitled to have access to it.

Which is reminiscent of authors who adamantly oppose their works ever being published again, such as SK's opposition to Rage. (Unrelated to artists being complete dicks, such as Bruce Campbell refusing to sign a comic book because it legally used his character but didn't pay him a royalty he thought he deserved.)

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Except I am not overlooking that at all, because as I specifically pointed out, ""No I'm not, because I was never going to pay for it anyway!" is not a valid argument, because there is literally no scenario in which you "deserve" to be able to experience a paid product for free simply because you feel overly entitled. If you were never going to pay for it, then you shouldn't be experiencing it, period."

But the two things are completely unrelated. You're trying to justify an unsubstantiated material harm argument with a moral argument that has no bearing on said harm.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Libraries have always been a relatively accepted grey area (originally for books, and slowly becoming so for other media), but even there they're still limited in how widespread their influence is - they're still buying the book/CD/DVD/game/etc first, then can only really loan it out on a 1:1 basis (ie, they're not buying a game, copying it 1000 times, and then giving it permanently away to anyone who asks).

Given the one-time consumption nature of a lot of entertainment products, that influence cannot be understated.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

It's an extremely fuzzy issue, though, because technically speaking, a lot of things which are accepted are technically illegal. It's one of the issues that cropped up for years with VCRs and TV rights (and part of why the NFL became notorious for their disclaimers that you're not allowed to tape or show any of their games without express permission from the NFL), with taping music off the radio (or making digital copies of CDs), and so on. By some of the stricter interpretations of the law, me loaning my CD to a friend isn't illegal, but me copying that CD for a friend is.

Well, that's not so much "accepted" as it is completely unenforceable. While a lot of piracy results from friends copying borrowed CDs, etc, -- which at least one study had claimed was more prevalent than digital piracy, although I have no idea how they reached that conclusion -- there's no way to distinguish an owned CD from a borrowed CD. Likewise, there's no mechanism for destroying files on your computer after you sell your CD.

Somewhat in the same vein, I should mention that some time ago I bought Bring It On: The Musical off Amazon which includes the digital files with the purchase. I burned the digital files onto a CD before my shipment arrived and have never actually even opened the physical CD itself. In theory, I could even sell it new. Of course, given the nature of Amazon's arrangements, I'm not even sure if that'd technically be piracy since they might pay a small fee for digital to the copyright holders in addition to selling the CDs. However, it'd clearly be underhanded.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash