Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ferghis" data-source="post: 5223602" data-attributes="member: 40483">The below is not legal advice. You are responsible for your own actions. Law varies by country, too, so specific instances will vary. And I am not responsible for you if you break the law.I skimmed the thread, so what I have to say may have been covered elsewhere. I have two main points. Legally, public opinion is moving towards a view that empowers the copyrightholder. This is problematic because this common perception is often mistaken, but it will end up affecting how courts resolve these matters, because courts have to resolve things based, in part, on a common understanding. A copyright is far from absolute. In the United States, the purpose of copyright law is to "promote the progress of science and useful arts." Section 8 of Article 1 of the US Constitution constrains federal copyright law thusly. So, an otherwise legal copyright that is contrary to such purpose is not valid and unenforceable. Further, everyone has broad power to make fair use (a term of art) of copyrighted material. This means that copying copyrighted material is ABSOLUTELY fine for private and personal purposes that are in line with the material itself. For example, no character sheet ever need to grant the right to copy the sheet for personal use, because that right is intrinsically owned by the person that bought a game. The fact that copyright law is outgrowing its original boundaries is a literal loss to all of us, since we lose rights we otherwise have. Please be mindful of this when you discuss copyright.Morally, the boundaries are more nebulous, but generally favor those that make use of the copyrighted material without owning the copyright if there is a sense of fairness about these actions. Sometimes illegal use is morally sound, where it is done only in spite of the limitations imposed by marketing and media formats. For example, if I buy a movie or a game in Japan, I ought to be able to watch it anywhere I damn please, without having to circumvent the regional limitations built in to the medium. If, due to international deals, I can't legally access the intellectual property that would be otherwise available to the public somewhere else, I'm in morally sound territory to obtain that material illegally because there is more good to circulating information than there is to respecting a deal made by two people you've probably never met.Lending or giving the CD should be legal, in most instances, at least if the CD itself is a legal copy. They are also both morally sound actions. Burning a copy may or may not be legal, depending on who owns the right to the music therein. Even if it is not legal, it may be morally sound if you cannot purchase a copy of the music therein, or if you can't obtain the music therein legally. Of course, if it is legal for you to burn a copy of the music, then it is also morally sound.Also assuming that the material is public domain, all of the above is both legal and moral.Assuming someone else owns the copyright for the book, in the United States, the above actions are legal if they fall within the somewhat confusing boundaries <a href="http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/fair-use" target="_blank">fair use doctrine.</a> Morally, it depends on the intent. If the "publication" was intended to remain private (and reasonable steps were taken to insure that it remained so), you are on sound ground. There are some other improbable situations in which copying the material may be morally sound, such as if the contents detailed the corrpution of a public official, or were copied to avoid a greater harm, but copying such material is otherwise immoral.This depends on the type of rights obtained with the subscription. Assuming you agreed to a license, there is insufficient detail here to address the legality of these issues. Morally, it depends on the content, and what kind of "extra" use of the material you may be causing. For example, if you give your username and password to a couple of friends who view the content once or twice, but would have never subscribed, you're morally safe. If your friends would have otherwise subscribed, or the make thorough use of the site and could technically subscribe on their own (setting aside issue of whether they can afford it), then you've lost the moral highground.Legally, if the <a href="http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1685" target="_blank">EULA</a> says you can't, and you've agreed to the EULA, you can't. There's no fair use doctrine that applies to licenses. The license is like a contract ("is like" does not mean "is") between two or more parties, and it binds only them. But it's more complicated than just that. Morally, it somewhat depends on the same factors I outlined above. If your friends would not have subscribed, and make limited use of it, then you're okay. If they would have subscribed, or if they make copious use of the account, then you're morally wrong.Assuming the pdf was legal in the first instance, making a copy of it (be it one page or the whole thing, printed or electronic) for personal use is legal. The last in the list of examples is the most questionable, legally, and may or may not be illegal, depending on the amount of malice (in the general sense of the word: I'm not using malice as a legal term of art) involved. Morally, if it's legal, it's also morally okay. If it's not legal, you have to look at the harm done. If there was NO harm, then it's okay. If there was any harm, then you're not. Establishing exactly whether there was any harm is something that I am not able to fully figure out, so I'm morally obligated to not harm, which makes it immoral where it is not legal. At least for me.The last one is illegal if you are not allowed to do so by the copyright owner. The second one might be if they make more use of the material than is allowed by the fair use doctrine. The first one probably fits within the fair use doctrine. Morally, the third one is wrong. The first one is morally fine. The morality of the second one depends on the harm done, and the amount of use made. If the pdfs are referred to occasionally, there's no moral difference between 1 and 2, which seems to be the likely scenario. If they refer to them all the time, thank the gods that you have such great players, and purchase another copy the players can share to keep your moral highground and the associated karma.Do you make up these questions, Mr. Comeback? Or do they write 'em down for you?</blockquote>

Verification