|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] | ||||||||||
Kozmo V.I.P. 5473 Posts 
|
Lol...no, this is about the intent of the person when he buys the dvd....his intention is to simply buy it, copy it and then sell it....when you die your wife or chidren have my permission to sell your collection
koz |
|||||||||
|
jimtron Inner circle 2039 Posts
|
Quote:
OK, there are shades of grey but into those shades there are grey ethical things and there are grey unethical things. Is there a line between those where one grey butts up against another? It's hard to draw lines between gray areas, so I would say no, not necessarily. Quote:
What I'm getting at is this: everyone draws their "ethical line" in the sand; things on that side "is" and things on this side "ain't". Would that be an agreeable model if we take the "I don't know" or "haven't decided yet"s and remove them as incompletely thought through? I don't understand this question (above). Quote:
You make an interesting statement. Reselling of DVDs is more harmful, and would I be correct in assuming more unethical to you, than down loading a different version of something you have in your permanent library. It makes for an interesting model, but one not grounded in the reality of the market place or the reality of copyright law. But interesting just the same. What I said was, "...selling used magic DVDs is potentially more harmful to sales than downloading a title that you have purchased, in my opinion." In that statement, I meant downloading the same version of the title you purchased. Quote: No. I'm simply saying that reselling a magic DVD is potentially more harmful to sales than downloading the same version of a video that has been legally purchased.
Are you telling me you have never, and will never, buy or sell any used magic media (books, tapes, DVDs, lecture notes, tricks) and that upon one's passing their media should be destroyed because it is used? -Jim |
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5930 Posts
|
Jim,
Interesting claim but my first issue is with sourcing your copy from people engaged in criminal activity. You pay for the product by your presence to the site which substantiates and supports a site created to help people engage in much more illegal activity than you have by your violation of copyright. So I guess you could say it is like buying a car from the dealer and when it gets destroyed, buying a replacement from a guy who sells stolen cars really cheap. You might even get one for free if he needs to look like legit business that day for some reason. And afterall it wasn't your fault your car got destroyed, you really shouldn't have to pay any more than the very least to get a replacement. The dealer already got his money, right. Tom |
|||||||||
|
Kozmo V.I.P. 5473 Posts
|
|
|||||||||
|
jimtron Inner circle 2039 Posts
|
Hypothetical situation:
Bob purchases Osterlind's ETMMM Vol. 1 on DVD from Denny and Lee. Bob's two year old son gets a hold of it and manages to crack the disc; now it's unplayable. Bob goes online and finds ETMMM Vol. 1 via a P2P network. He downloads it, saves it on his computer, and does not make any copies or share it with anyone else. In my view, this is not analogous to buying a stolen car, which would involve someone losing their vehicle. The above scenario is theoretically a victimless crime; Denny and Lee got their money, L&L and Osterlind got their money, and Bob ended up with one copy of the title (he paid for one copy, he ends up with one copy). No one loses their property, unlike the car theft scenario. Once again, I'm not arguing that participating in file sharing is OK, and I'm not saying that my hypothetical scenario is necessarily legal. I'm only backing up what I originally said many posts ago, in response to Justin's original post: In my opinion it's not unethical to download a title that you have legally purchased. |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
How about we draw a parellel to the above:
Bob buys a paperback book. His child tosses the book into the kindling in the barbacue during the setup for a party. Bob does not see this and only finds out later when cleaning out the barbacue. Is it then ethical for Bob to download the PDF version of the book from a P2P site? Even if he has his recipt for the paperback?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
jimtron Inner circle 2039 Posts
|
If Bob wants to continue reading and watching DVDs, perhaps he should put the kid up for adoption. Won't he ever learn?
This is a bit different than the original example, because a PDF is not the same as a paperback book. Presumably someone who owns a printed book might also want to purchase an electronic version so that they would have the ability to search the book, or cut and paste brief passages to use in a review or paper or something. The PDF has features that the print book doesn't have. A downloaded video doesn't have any special features that the purchased DVD doesn't have. |
|||||||||
Frank Tougas Inner circle Minneapolis, MN 1712 Posts
|
Quote: Easy distinction - If I am guilty of unethical behavior it is "kind of unethical" if anyone else is guilty, that would be "Flat out unethical." On 2005-12-24 13:17, Tom Cutts wrote: 
Frank Tougas
Frank Tougas The Twin Cities Most "Kid Experienced" Children's Performer :"Creating Positive Memories...One Smile at a Time"
|
|||||||||
|
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5930 Posts
|
Jim,
Actually it is exactly like the stolen car analogy. The guy who got his car stolen had the insurance company pay him for that loss. The insurance company spread the loss out to society. The P2P site does the same because while we held a 1 of 1000 DVD in our hands at one point that P2P site now makes it a 1 in 5000 product, thus devaluing everyone's ownership and spreading that cost (loss of value) through out the owners of the product. Furthermore, the action of putting a file up for free downloading does indeed steal from the original publisher or copyright holder. If the only use of the P2P site was to replace lost or damaged product, you might have an angle. That is not their primary purpose, it is only an accidental purpose. But again a digital file complete with its authoring is not the same as a copy of a video tape. You are simply wrong on this point. If you want to replace a destroyed object you need to obtain that replacement through legal means for it to be legit. Anything less and you have cheated the copyright holder and publisher. |
|||||||||
|
jimtron Inner circle 2039 Posts
|
Tom:
I agree that uploading files, or downloading files that you have not purchased, or running a site that offers unauthorized copyrighted material for free downloading could be compared to stealing. What I said before was that downloading a title that had been previously purchased was not analagous to car theft. Quote:
If you want to replace a destroyed object you need to obtain that replacement through legal means for it to be legit. I agree. |
|||||||||
Richard Osterlind V.I.P. 2213 Posts
|
I really think you should examine your thinking here, Jimtron. To download something illegally is wrong. You are trying to justify a wrong because of circumstances - something that just about every criminal since the beginning of time has been doing.
Richard |
|||||||||
|
jimtron Inner circle 2039 Posts
|
Richard: Thanks for weighing in on this. I will examine my thinking as you suggested.
And by the way, I purchased ETMMM Vol. 5 from Hocus-Pocus on 11/2/05. I hold your (Osterlind's) creations in very high regard and am vehemently against anyone stealing your products, or anyone elses. My example with "Bob" was entirely fictional. I'm not trying to justify downloading DVD titles to cover something I've done; I've never done that. My main point in all of this is that I don't find downloading a title that has been legally purchased to be unethical. I'm not saying that I've done it, or that it's a good idea, or that it should be encouraged. On the second page of this thread I said: "I never said that I advocated copyright violation. I absolutely do not. And I don't advocate downloading in lieu of purchasing. In fact, I don't even advocate downloading a title that you've already purchased--I simply said that I personally don't find it unethical." And from another post of mine on this thread: "I am absolutely against denying artists their rightful legal income." Some might argue that participating in file sharing is a slippery slope, and what might start with downloading a title that has been purchased and got damaged, might lead to downloading titles that have not been purchased. That may be true, but I would draw the line (my personal opinion) between downloading the purchased title (ethical) and downloading unpurchased titles (unethical). best, Jim |
|||||||||
|
Richard Osterlind V.I.P. 2213 Posts
|
Jim,
Thank you for taking my comment in the light with which it was suggested. I would venture to say that most manufacturers would replace a broken piece of equipment or DVD in the hypothetical you suggested. (or at least one at a greatly reduced price) I know that Jim and I would rather go out of our way to please a customer knowing it would bring good feelings and probably new business than being hard nosed about it. Richard |
|||||||||
|
jimtron Inner circle 2039 Posts
|
Richard:
Thank you for the response. I'm thrilled with the products of yours that I have purchased. If I do end up in "Bob's" predicament, I will try contacting the manufacturer and see about getting a replacement. best, Jim |
|||||||||
|
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5930 Posts
|
Jim, it is simple. Don't let Bob's 2 year old near your stuff.
Do you find a contradiction in calling something "personally ethical" (paraphrasing) and claiming to not advocate it? I'm basing this on the consideration that "not unethical" = "ethical". |
|||||||||
|
jimtron Inner circle 2039 Posts
|
Quote:
Jim, it is simple. Don't let Bob's 2 year old near your stuff. Excellent idea. Quote:
Do you find a contradiction in calling something "personally ethical" (paraphrasing) and claiming to not advocate it? I'm basing this on the consideration that "not unethical" = "ethical". No. I don't find pot smoking to be unethical, but I wouldn't advocate it. I don't find glue-sniffing to be unethical, but I would urge everyone not to do it as it is extremely harmful. As far as "not unethical=ethical," If I called glue-sniffing "ethical," I think that would sound like I advocate it, or that I think it's a good idea. Calling something "not unethical" has a different implication than calling it "ethical." -Jim |
|||||||||
|
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5930 Posts
|
Quote:
Calling something "not unethical" has a different implication than calling it "ethical." Can you elaborate? |
|||||||||
|
JackScratch Inner circle 2151 Posts
|
Have any of you actualy looked up the fair use act? My understanding of the law is that you can download legaly and ethicly from these sites, what you can't do, legaly or ethicly, is upload. Likewise, you may only own copys of things you posses originals of. DO NOT DESTROY THE ORIGINALS. The ownership of the originals is what gives you the right, under US law anyway, to download copys of these tapes. I've seen a lot of opinions on the subject of ethics, and that's a different story, but US law is pretty clear on the subject. For purposes of backup or format change, you may posses copywrited material that you own legal copies of. You may not distribute these copys, which is why the people posting thismaterial are on shaky ground, and why there is so much grey area, but as for getting and possesing, what he is doing is legal.
|
|||||||||
|
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5930 Posts
|
Care to elaborate, Jack? Specific passage which says anything other than you have the right to make copies of YOUR original. Not own copies of information on your originals but literally ONLY make copies from your original.
|
|||||||||
|
jimtron Inner circle 2039 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2005-12-30 04:32, Tom Cutts wrote: Tom: I'll gladly elaborate, but perhaps next time I ask you to elaborate or clarify, you won't accuse me of wanting to be spoonfed (as you have before).
In my view there is a slight difference in implication between calling something "ethical" vs. calling it "not unethical" (although basically the meaning is the same). As I said before, if I stated that sniffing glue is ethical, that might sound to some like I think it's a good idea (and of course I think it's a horrible idea, just not unethical). The fact is, I don't think glue sniffing is unethical, but calling it "not unethical" to me doesn't imply an endorsement the way that saying "glue sniffing is ethical" might to some people. -Jim |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Is this the right thing to do? Is it Ethical? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Dec 26, 2005 08:27 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.03 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|