ok, so instead of robbing a bank you are robbing a convienence store.....what kind of warped ethics is this?
you buy a DRM music track, you are agreeing to the delivery terms therein. You can't just say, "hey I don't like how this is delivered anymore so I'm going to break it out of jail". now if later the vendor wants to release you from the DRM license and provide you with a drm free track no charge that is their perogative...not yours.
What you do is you don't buy DRM music in the first place. And you don't justify breakng it out of DRM now because of the abundance of non-drm music.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't believe in DRM music either, but I don't try to apply some strange grey ethics to the whole process of circumventing DRM. It's like saying I'm just a casual law breaker instead of a hard core one....you still are breaking the law.
Which is a totally differernt matter than the ethics of it.
I get where you are coming from with regards to the DRM packaging and that you eseentially agreed to it when making the purchase. But none of the analogies really work, hence the problem getting good laws regarding digital products. However, in general you can do whatever you want with a product you own.
If I buy a DRM'd product and choose the remove the DRM and still only use it for my own personal use, what have I done wrong and who have I damaged. And I'm talking at the ethical, not legal level.
If you rent a DRM'd product and remove the DRM with the intent to keep the product past the rental period, I'd say you did something wrong legally and ethically. I'd even go so far as to say that if you removed it from from a rented product and only used the non-DRM'd version during your rental period, you are still on good ethical ground.
Which is a totally differernt matter than the ethics of it.
I get where you are coming from with regards to the DRM packaging and that you eseentially agreed to it when making the purchase. But none of the analogies really work, hence the problem getting good laws regarding digital products.
uh, yeah, they do.
Quote:
However, in general you can do whatever you want with a product you own.
sorry that is not the case. you can do whatever you want with the product within the terms you agreed to when you bought it.
Quote:
If I buy a DRM'd product and choose the remove the DRM and still only use it for my own personal use, what have I done wrong and who have I damaged. And I'm talking at the ethical, not legal level.
the fact is you broke the terms of use. if you find nothing unethical about breaking agreements then I can see how you can justify this.
Quote:
If you rent a DRM'd product and remove the DRM with the intent to keep the product past the rental period, I'd say you did something wrong legally and ethically. I'd even go so far as to say that if you removed it from from a rented product and only used the non-DRM'd version during your rental period, you are still on good ethical ground.
I'd say this ethical reasoning can't get any more warped.
Discussing ethics is kind of like discussing religion or politics, which are both very explosive subjects and usually discouraged here, but let's see if we can have this discussion in a civil manner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inteller
ok, so instead of robbing a bank you are robbing a convienence store.....what kind of warped ethics is this?...It's like saying I'm just a casual law breaker instead of a hard core one....you still are breaking the law.
In my opinion, the law isn't always ethical. Ethics transcend the law, and the law is rarely bound by ethical constraints; they are two very different things. I can cite times in human history where it was legal to persecute, enslave, and kill people of a certain race, religion, or creed. Just because it was legal doesn't mean it was ethical. And saying "It's legal, I'm allowed to do this!" doesn't excuse anyone from the ethical ramifications of their actions.
If you believe that the law and ethics are the same, how do you feel about speeding? Technically you're breaking the law if you're going 5 MPH over the speed limit, but I don't consider speeding to be unethical in most cases; do you? If someone is doing 60 MPH in a playground zone on the other hand, that's reckless and unethical behaviour. To the law, speeding is speeding - though there will be different penalties applied of course.
Ethics stay the same, while the law changes based on the society that creates the laws. What's legal today might not be legal tomorrow, and vice-versa.
Now, as it applies in this this circumstance: when I purchase a CD, DVD, or digital file, I'm purchasing the right to watch/listen to that content. I do not consider it unethical for me to crack the DeCSS encryption on a DVD to rip it to my hard drive. Technically, doing that is still legal in Canada, though it's illegal in the USA. If you believe the law and ethics are the same, then you would think that ripping a DVD is unethical for you, but ethical for me. And what kind of sense does that make?
__________________ Want to contact me personally? Use this. Want to read my personal blog? Check it out. Want to follow me on Twitter? Here you go.
yes, it falls under the general clause "you agree to not modify" in the terms. It is included with most IP products such as music and video.
Ok, so riddle me this: I bought about $80 worth of music from MSN Music a couple of years ago. At the time I agreed to their usage model, which was DRM authentication on "X" number of computers. Seems reasonable, right? Until they decide to shut down their service, effectively altering their EULA (as they have the legal right to do) and shutting out all customers from accessing the music they bought. Public pressure had them bump back the shut-down date, but it's still going to happen.
What MSN Music did was perfectly legal, but how can you argue that it's morally right to take $80 from someone, then take away their ability to listen to the music they bought? I didn't purchase it with the understanding I was renting it for a few years - I purchased it with the understanding that once I bought it, it was mine to keep for as long as I wanted. That's the way it was marketed to me, and that's the way it was sold - clearly differentiated from the music subscription services out there.
__________________ Want to contact me personally? Use this. Want to read my personal blog? Check it out. Want to follow me on Twitter? Here you go.
I'd say this ethical reasoning can't get any more warped.
Obviously, ethics is a deeply personal matter, but what Chris is saying makes perfect sense to me. Due to time/scheduling problems, I've ripped DVDs that I've rented from Blockbuster, returned the DVD, watched the ripped DVD, then deleted the file. Legal for me in Canada? Yes. Legal in the US? No. Ethical everywhere? Yes, I'd say so.
How does that scenario seem unethical to you?
__________________ Want to contact me personally? Use this. Want to read my personal blog? Check it out. Want to follow me on Twitter? Here you go.
Then how come iTunes specifically allows you to convert to mp3 and break the DRM by burning to CD and re-ripping?
convert yes, break no. They have an agreement that allows you to do that 3 times. The original file still stays intact, you just can't burn it anymore. If you decide to take your 3 copies and makes 1000s of copies from that thats your ethical delimma, but you have not broken your agreement with Apple. BUT, if you lose all 3 copies and decide you don't like that and want to break/convert the now closed file so you can make more copies you have broken your agreement with Apple. I find that to be unethical because you had a promised agreement and you broke that promise.
Linear Mode
