That doesn’t mean the law governing them is any different. Both are, afaik, equally protected. The issue here is defending against infringement. That’s not a stronger law issue, but an interpretation issue.
With regards to terminology, I still don’t like the term “illegal downloading” or “legal downloading” unless its being used with a specific case study. So often I hear people say “illegal downloading” refering to any downloading outside iTunes and that’s just not the reality, as you pointed out already.
I don’t hear that. And I can’t understand how there’s a problem saying either “legal downloading” or illegal downloading". Is there another kind?
My mention of high-seas piracy was cute, but I think that word is used a little too freely. It is a loaded word, associated with seedy, immoral and indefensible acts. The use of “piracy” is an attempt to push the social discourse away from arguing true merits and towards the kinds of sound-bits that create unforseen errors. As such, I’ll belittle the term every chance I get. Moreover, I can tell from your detailed responses that you don’t want that sort of demagoguery either.
Fair enough. I can dispense with using that term (along with “surfing”). The issues remain.
DRM is different from IP laws, but it is like companies becoming IP vigilantes. I’m not comfortable with companies suing or threatening tens of thousands of people in order to enforce their opinion of what they have sold. In my opinion, the balance between immoral copying and fair-use is being decided for society by only one stakeholder. That makes me uncomfortable as a citizen.
Simple. Then don’t buy their product. But there’s also absolutely no justification for finding it online and downloading it either That’s theft, pure and simple.
You know, someone could (unreasonably) say that high-prices are a form of DRM. That because they live in a country where everything is cheap and wages are low, $100 for 3D software (I’m using a recent example here) is too much even though the developer lives in the expensive U.S., and thus it’s reasonable for that person to simply download it off the net.
Free sure is fair to them. And sure unfair to the guy who pays $1000+ rent a month.
I obviously don’t see as much grey area in an “opinion of what they have sold”. I’m unaware of anyone who sells a license to every consumer who buys their music/movie/software to make unlimited copies and distribute/share them electronically among friends. Even Neil Young isn’t giving that right away I bet. I’ll grant you that there is some grey areas. But let’s not be coy and make excuses for people who rip DVD’s rented from Blockbuster, save low-rez versions to disk, and then share them/copy them for friends at uni.
“Then can I assume that when I do this with your company’s products, I can quote you, use this as legal justification, and proceed to sell products based on your designs using your company’s name > so long as consumers understand that the product is not made by your company> ? Yes or No answer please.”
No. If the product could be misconstrued as another, I think it deceptive and should not be allowed. Even if most consumers understand that it is a copy.
Did you miss something here? See my bolded assurance consumers will not be misled. If the answer is still “No”, then explain it please. Because it sounds as if your being hypocritical.
I think we are both in agreement on the big issue of boundaries, we are just disputing where midfield should be located.
Only I’m wondering why designers so often think the concept of “sharing” doesn’t apply to their work.