On 10-6-2009 0:21, Shay wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>>>   B. Record a television program with a dvr and skip the commercials.
>> Morally and legaly ok, you can always record what is broadcast for 
>> yourself, don't give or sell to others.
>>>   C. Cable f's up during a favorite television program - go find a 
>>> torrent and download it.
>> Morally equivalent to B from your point of view. Illegal from the 
>> other guys POV.
> 
> This is why C probably best illustrates my point: there may very well be 
> a legal, moral remedy to my having missed the program. The program may 
> *eventually* be released on DVD, but waiting for it is, in most people's 
> minds, too much to ask to satisfy my moral obligations. If someone set 
> up a pay download service for television programs, then most would 
> believe me immoral for downloading the program for free. The only 
> distinction between that possibility and now is that the download 
> service would make NOT stealing more convenient.

And there is the point that you did pay to see the program. The reasons 
this becomes muddy is that law has not yet adopted to current 
technology. (Or alternatively that people have been paid to write laws 
in such a way that it became muddy)

> My only point is that there IS a line at which stealing becomes 
> acceptable. Does it extend to brick and mortar retail? Sure does. Just 
> today, I picked up a "for sale" pen to write down an item number of some 
> washers I was purchasing. I didn't purchase the pen and now the guy who 
> does will have 6 fewer numbers worth of ink to worth with. Wrong? 
> Whatever you think, I can guarantee that quite a few people will feel 
> the other way.
> 
> Why does any of this matter? Because the tax-funded government shouldn't 
> go any farther to protect a giant company's property than mine. 

Yes, but you are an anonymous tax-payer and that big firm comes knocking 
on the door with a lot of 'additional' cash. And their own lawyers to 
explain to you why their point of view is better than that of those 
anonymous tax-payers.

> Logistics demand reasonableness.

Who will define reasonable?

Post a reply to this message