What's the difference between these three premeds? (AO related)

[Rafa]

I have a brief MCAT-related thought experiment. Meet John, Sally, and Bender. Three students studying for the MCAT. J, S, & B want Audio Osmosis, but they don't want to buy it (new or used). So John, Sally, and Bender do the following:

John - goes to the local library. Checks out AO. Rips 12cds to his mp3 player.

Sally - goes to google. Downloads AO. Uploads 12cds to her mp3 player.

Bender - goes next door. Rips AO from friend's computer. Uploads 12cds to his mp3 player.

None of these premeds payed for AO. What each did was illegal in the eyes of the law - unauthorized copying of a copywrighted product without permission or payment from/to EK. The question: Do you see any difference among the three students in terms of what they did, or do you find their actions equally justifiable/unjustifiable?

I'm curious to see how fellow SDN peeps tackle an issue like this.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ADeadLois]

I have a brief MCAT-related thought experiment. Meet John, Sally, and Bender. Three students studying for the MCAT. J, S, & B want Audio Osmosis, but they don't want to buy it (new or used). So John, Sally, and Bender do the following:

John - goes to the local library. Checks out AO. Rips 12cds to his mp3 player.

Sally - goes to google. Downloads AO. Uploads 12cds to her mp3 player.

Bender - goes next door. Rips AO from friend's computer. Uploads 12cds to his mp3 player.

None of these premeds payed for AO. What each did was illegal in the eyes of the law - unauthorized copying of a copywrighted product without permission or payment from/to EK. The question: Do you see any difference among the three students in terms of what they did, or do you find their actions equally justifiable/unjustifiable?

I'm curious to see how fellow SDN peeps tackle an issue like this.

Hmm...good question.

Here's my thinking,

I re-sold A&O on eBay. I got $90 for it and eBay gets a commission, but EK doesn't get anything. Now, is that any different from lending to a friend for free? The bottom line is that someone is getting EK without giving any money to the people who actually produced it. Yet it's perfectly legal to re-sell it. So how is that any different from what John and Bender are doing? (I'm not going to touch what Sally is doing, because that's a whole other can of worms).

Can someone with knowledge of copyright shed some light into my logic?

 

[MahSpoon]

So how is that any different from what John and Bender are doing? (I'm not going to touch what Sally is doing, because that's a whole other can of worms).

It depends on the terms of End User License Agreement (EULA) and Terms of Service (TOS) because usually when you buy things like multimedia/software, you aren't paying for the actual discs but the license to use the music/movie/software.

When you resell your copy, you give up the right to use the software anymore. If you ripped the CD's and put them on your ipod, you must delete the files off your ipod before selling to make it totally legal.

SBJ all obtain the files differently but have the result that the original copy ends up being used by more than 1 person which probably violates the EULA or TOS.

The de facto standard is that if you rip a CD from the library or friend you probably won't get caught. If you download the CD's from the internet then there's a much greater chance that you will get caught since it would be simple for the OA to monitor any IP's that download a file and subpoena the ISP for your info under DCMA.

Imagine having to explain to an interview panel how you were sued for theft of intellectual property

I personally think that there is a very small chance of anyone catching you and even smaller chance that the AO copyright holders would use you an example and prosecute.

Nonetheless, we should all work on making the right ethical decisions that our conscience can reconcile

 

[Frank Hardy]

Legal is not equivalent to ethical

 

[MahSpoon]

Legal is not equivalent to ethical

Seems to me like you think doing the illegal thing can still be ethical in this case.

Care to expand on this, or were you just making a blanket statement that no one can deny?

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Imagine having to explain to an interview panel how you were sued for theft of intellectual property

if its a civil case, it would be idiotic and unrequired to report to an adcom.


you can debate the ethics of this allday, but let's face it, intellectual property infringement is pretty low on the scale of unethical activities that one could undertake.

 

[superwillis]

This is a very interesting topic.

My friend recently bought AO off of ebay. For the sake of discussion, lets call him Joe. The auction said nothing about it being copied or pirated. After purchasing it, the seller contacted him via email and told him it is his copy of the cd's, not the original. Joe said he was going to put it on his ipod, so he replied "thats fine". Just recently the seller emailed all 20 or so buyers, saying that Examkrackers had emailed him about copyright violation, and asked for the buyers info. The seller tried to convince all the buyers to deny buying pirated copies from him.

While the seller is clearly in the wrong, are the buyers? To what extent can the buyers be held accountable?

 

[superwillis]

Ooh wait. I got another thought-scenario.

The Digital Copyright Millenium Act (DCMA) says that all individuals are entitled to a personal digital backup of any software they own, for "archival" purposes, under the assumption that any backups are destroyed if the individual loses his/her right to the original software.

If someone buys AO, makes a copy of it, and accidentally breaks the original, is he entitled to sell the backup?

 

[estairella]

I have a brief MCAT-related thought experiment. Meet John, Sally, and Bender. Three students studying for the MCAT. J, S, & B want Audio Osmosis, but they don't want to buy it (new or used). So John, Sally, and Bender do the following:

John - goes to the local library. Checks out AO. Rips 12cds to his mp3 player.

Sally - goes to google. Downloads AO. Uploads 12cds to her mp3 player.

Bender - goes next door. Rips AO from friend's computer. Uploads 12cds to his mp3 player.

None of these premeds payed for AO. What each did was illegal in the eyes of the law - unauthorized copying of a copywrighted product without permission or payment from/to EK. The question: Do you see any difference among the three students in terms of what they did, or do you find their actions equally justifiable/unjustifiable?

I'm curious to see how fellow SDN peeps tackle an issue like this.

I personally don't see anymore more "wrong" with any of those methods, on the assumption that each of them knew they were obtaining it illegally.

Think of it this way, if John or Bender didn't have their sources (library & friend, respectively), do you honestly believe they would pay, what is it, $150 for it? Likewise, if Sally knew she could borrow it from a friend, or it was readily available at the library, why would she bother downloading 12 CDs (much easier to get caught).

 

[sino408]

I'd wonder what any of the three persons would think about their own actions if EK were a publicly traded company and they owned shares in the company. When in doubt, apply the golden rule.

I have a brief MCAT-related thought experiment. Meet John, Sally, and Bender. Three students studying for the MCAT. J, S, & B want Audio Osmosis, but they don't want to buy it (new or used). So John, Sally, and Bender do the following:

John - goes to the local library. Checks out AO. Rips 12cds to his mp3 player.

Sally - goes to google. Downloads AO. Uploads 12cds to her mp3 player.

Bender - goes next door. Rips AO from friend's computer. Uploads 12cds to his mp3 player.

None of these premeds payed for AO. What each did was illegal in the eyes of the law - unauthorized copying of a copywrighted product without permission or payment from/to EK. The question: Do you see any difference among the three students in terms of what they did, or do you find their actions equally justifiable/unjustifiable?

I'm curious to see how fellow SDN peeps tackle an issue like this.

 

[lorelei]

Ooh wait. I got another thought-scenario.

The Digital Copyright Millenium Act (DCMA) says that all individuals are entitled to a personal digital backup of any software they own, for "archival" purposes, under the assumption that any backups are destroyed if the individual loses his/her right to the original software.

If someone buys AO, makes a copy of it, and accidentally breaks the original, is he entitled to sell the backup?

This is probably illegal, but I don't believe it's unethical. When you buy AO (or whatever) you're buying one copy, with which you get a bundle of fair use rights. Those include things like making personal copies; they don't include selling other copies. Legally it's probably technically forbidden to make a copy and sell it even if the original is destroyed, but since there's still only one copy it's not unethical.

 

[estairella]

I'd wonder what any of the three persons would think about their own actions if EK were a publicly traded company and they owned shares in the company. When in doubt, apply the golden rule.

I would say that's a bad example... and it doesn't have much to do with the golden rule. EK is not a publicly traded company, and they don't own shares in it. You shouldn't treat someone differently because of who they hypothetically might be, instead of who they are.

Or maybe we should all think about our own actions, like putting criminals in jail. After all, in a hypothetical world, those criminals could be the CEOs of publically traded companies that we have shares in. Hmm... nope, doesn't work.

The actual idea behind the Golden Rule is that others will treat you in accordance to how you treat them. If you steal from EK, and they have you arrested, that's their right. You're each respecting the other's rights equally (though not very much).

As a final example... I don't push my chairs in at public places, and I've been criticized for it. However, I have had a job where one of my responsibilities was pushing in the chairs of others. So I see no problem - I treat others the way I expect to be treated, I don't do it out of resentment, merely the fact that I know someone will push in my chair, just like I will push in someone else's chair.

 

[MahSpoon]

I don't push my chairs in at public places, and I've been criticized for it. However, I have had a job where one of my responsibilities was pushing in the chairs of others. So I see no problem - I treat others the way I expect to be treated, I don't do it out of resentment, merely the fact that I know someone will push in my chair, just like I will push in someone else's chair.

By the same logic do you throw your trash in the street simply because there is a machine that comes by and sweeps it? You sound like a jerk since you've rationalized why you shouldn't push in a chair which might get in someone's way and cause an accident.

 

[estairella]

By the same logic do you throw your trash in the street simply because there is a machine that comes by and sweeps it? You sound like a jerk since you've rationalized why you shouldn't push in a chair which might get in someone's way and cause an accident.

I'm from Canada, where littering is against the law. Also, people tell you not to go near trees or tall poles when there's lightning... yet far far far more people die every year from simple car accidents.

By your logic, I should push in seats, and I should not drive. After all, in both cases, doing what I currently do is convenient for me (not having to push things, and getting places faster), but at the cost of increased risk to others.

Hmmm.....

 

[doc G]

Just where in the H*** is this thread going???? What is the point?? Dont copy EK, push in your chair, and don't litter. Are you people studying for Aug MCAT?? You seem to have too much time on your hands

 

[Nikki2002]

I Don't Give A ****!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[superwillis]

I Don't Give A ****!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow. 4000+ posts and thats all you have to say?

 

[Nikki2002]

Wow. 4000+ posts and thats all you have to say?

i am a post *****. i will never deny it.

 

[sino408]

I would say that you missed my point.

I would say that's a bad example... and it doesn't have much to do with the golden rule. EK is not a publicly traded company, and they don't own shares in it. You shouldn't treat someone differently because of who they hypothetically might be, instead of who they are.

Or maybe we should all think about our own actions, like putting criminals in jail. After all, in a hypothetical world, those criminals could be the CEOs of publically traded companies that we have shares in. Hmm... nope, doesn't work.

The actual idea behind the Golden Rule is that others will treat you in accordance to how you treat them. If you steal from EK, and they have you arrested, that's their right. You're each respecting the other's rights equally (though not very much).

As a final example... I don't push my chairs in at public places, and I've been criticized for it. However, I have had a job where one of my responsibilities was pushing in the chairs of others. So I see no problem - I treat others the way I expect to be treated, I don't do it out of resentment, merely the fact that I know someone will push in my chair, just like I will push in someone else's chair.

 

[Frank Hardy]

Seems to me like you think doing the illegal thing can still be ethical in this case.

Care to expand on this, or were you just making a blanket statement that no one can deny?

Read lorelei's explanation. That was my line of reasoning as well. I also like stating facts of life.

 

[Rafa]

It seems as if we're getting off-topic. But I've been very interested in hearing responses. Neat discussion so far...

 

[Summer Sweet]

What do you guys think about this:

1) Person bought it from someone, and found out it was a copy and not the original. Then, person went on to sell that copy after they used it.

2) Person bought it from someone, and found out it was a copy and not the original. Then, person made copies of the copy that he bought, and sold a few.

3) Person got free copy from friend, and found out it was a copy and not the original. Then, person went on to sell that copy after they used it.

4) Person got free copy from friend, and found out it was a copy and not the original. Then, person made copies of the copy that he bought, and sold a few.

I know this is incredibly similar to the original line of thought, but I'm just wondering what you think about people who unknowingly get a fake, but decide to use/sell it despite the fact that it's not the original.

 

[superwillis]

As for my previous scenario, Examkrackers sent "Joe" an email, saying that if he mailed the pirated materials to them by a certain date, he wouldnt be prosecuted. They only wanted the seller.

Sucks for the seller. Who knows, he was probably a fellow SDNer.

 

[TarHeelBorn]

Just where in the H*** is this thread going???? What is the point?? Dont copy EK, push in your chair, and don't litter. Are you people studying for Aug MCAT?? You seem to have too much time on your hands

 

[whoispittsnogle]

all i know is that Sally is a G

 

[LifetimeDoc]

I say we all share copies of EK materials, and put Exam Krakers out of business by buying only one copy and sharing the rest via the Internet. That'll teach them to try and run a business.

 

[Law2Doc]

I have a brief MCAT-related thought experiment. Meet John, Sally, and Bender. Three students studying for the MCAT. J, S, & B want Audio Osmosis, but they don't want to buy it (new or used). So John, Sally, and Bender do the following:

John - goes to the local library. Checks out AO. Rips 12cds to his mp3 player.

Sally - goes to google. Downloads AO. Uploads 12cds to her mp3 player.

Bender - goes next door. Rips AO from friend's computer. Uploads 12cds to his mp3 player.

None of these premeds payed for AO. What each did was illegal in the eyes of the law - unauthorized copying of a copywrighted product without permission or payment from/to EK. The question: Do you see any difference among the three students in terms of what they did, or do you find their actions equally justifiable/unjustifiable?

I'm curious to see how fellow SDN peeps tackle an issue like this.

Bender is the worst of the bunch, as he has made a conspirator of his friend. In all cases, if caught the individuals are subject to hefty fines and possible jail time.

 

[Law2Doc]

Legal is not equivalent to ethical

Often legal is the codification of ethical.

 

[Dr.Acula]

Wow..you guys are all pretty uptight. Its not like you're distributing illegal copies and making money off it. If someone gave me a free copy of AO I would say thank you and take it. I would not d/l it only for fear of being sued, but wouldn't really have any reservations about copying it from the library, after all i pay my taxes!

 

[LifetimeDoc]

Wow..you guys are all pretty uptight. Its not like you're distributing illegal copies and making money off it. If someone gave me a free copy of AO I would say thank you and take it. I would not d/l it only for fear of being sued, but wouldn't really have any reservations about copying it from the library, after all i pay my taxes!

Your taxes paid for that single copy to be available for people to listen to inside the library, one at a time. Your taxes didn't pay for everyone to hop into the library, make a copy, and then leave so they can listen to that copy at their leisure and/or to distribute copies to others. EK was paid USD$200 (MSRP, or whatever they paid for it) for the library to have that ONE copy. It doesn't matter that you aren't making money off it.

It's not about being uptight, it's about having ethics and using them. You know those things that doctors are supposed to have?

 

[Law2Doc]

Wow..you guys are all pretty uptight. Its not like you're distributing illegal copies and making money off it. If someone gave me a free copy of AO I would say thank you and take it. I would not d/l it only for fear of being sued, but wouldn't really have any reservations about copying it from the library, after all i pay my taxes!

It's stealing. You are depriving someone of a sale of property they created. It's basic ten commandments stuff. And that's why the federal copyright laws make this punishable by a pretty hefty monetary fine (something like $50k) plus possible jail time. Far more severe penalties than if you swiped a CD from the local record store.

 

[Lindyhopper]

I re-sold A&O on eBay. I got $90 for it and eBay gets a commission, but EK doesn't get anything. Now, is that any different from lending to a friend for free? The bottom line is that someone is getting EK without giving any money to the people who actually produced it. Yet it's perfectly legal to re-sell it. So how is that any different from what John and Bender are doing? . . .

Economicly the legal reselling of intellectual property can indirectly benefit its creator. Having a "secondary" market allowing someone to recoup some of the cost of purchase, encourages more people to buy EK products in the first place.
It's like reselling your textbooks compared to illegally coping them. An important distinction is that you can only resell the some number of copies that you legally purchased.
I'm actually looking at a Honda ad touting the resale value of their cars.