Comments on: Questionable Ethics?

By: James

James — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:58:42 +0000

I seem to recall that, at least in American copyright and ownership laws, downloading an electronic copy of something you already own is at least partially protected.

A few years ago, when my old Super Nintendo finally and completely died – the components were just too old – I was left with a pile of games that I still, from time to time, wanted to play. A friend told me about something called “emulator software” and “ROMs.” I looked into it and saw that it was, for the most part, illegal… except for one important loophole.

I don’t remember the exact phrasing or what clause of what monolithic copyright law text it came from, but it basically said that I had a right to an electronic backup of anything I owned that could be so created. (I can’t have an electronic backup of my favorite chair, for obvious reasons.) Now my old game cartridges were no longer worthless but instead tokens that enabled me to download the emulator and accompanying ROMs – from a morally and legally sound standpoint. If the authorities came knocking, I could point at the pile of plastic and silicon and say, “I already own these things. It’s my right as an American that I don’t have to pay for what’s already been paid.”

This isn’t the only example, though. Recently some films – including the DVD release of “I Am Legend,” which is how I found out about this – are allowing people to download an electronic copy of the movie for use on their iPod or computer or what-have-you. Sure, it’s primarily a marketing gimmick and an attempt (however vain) to curtail illegal downloading, but the reason the movie companies can do this is because of what I already mentioned: American copyright and ownership laws allow you to have your own electronic backup. It’s why you can legally copy a CD you own – not borrow, like in the article above, that’s still illegal – onto your computer and put it on your MP3 player to listen to it. You paid for it; the license to use it as you see fit is yours.

Therefore, I put forward that not only is Cohen’s reader morally allowed to use his downloaded copy of “Under the Dome,” but also fully within his legal rights as well. That King’s publishers didn’t have an electronic copy/backup available shouldn’t hinder the reader’s right to his electronic backup.

By: Bob in Hillsborough NJ

Bob in Hillsborough NJ — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 21:51:10 +0000

Hmmm. If I subscribed to the New York Times in the 1970′s, am I ethically entitled to hack into their website archives to read articles from that time? After all, my purchase of the paper newspapers “should be regarded as a license to enjoy [them] on any platform”.

By: Neil in Chicago

Neil in Chicago — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 02:22:47 +0000

If this isn’t deliberately provocative, it’s excessively disingenuous.
The relation between law and morality is wildly uneven at best. It’s absurd to assume one can simply be a standin for the other.
The question of “ownership” and “purchase” is not that simple. When you buy a book, what are you buying? The same quantity of blank pages and bottled ink would be much cheaper; the physical object is generally a secondary aspect of the purchase. Would you buy a book if you could only read it in one room of your house, and if you wanted to read it, or parts of it, in some other room, you had to buy another copy for each room? OK, would you buy an “e-book” which you couldn’t move to another brand of reader?
If you’ve bought the book, you paid everyone in the production and distribution chains, and own a physical copy, but you still can’t read it on an e-book reader . . . The publishers’ morality can be brought into question as easily as a “pirate”‘s in this case.