On the ethicality of altering or replacing media without repurchasing

[theweaselking]

EDIT: The intent of the first question is to ask if copying-for-free is ALWAYS okay, regardless of circumstance. If there is any circumstance where copying-for-free would not be okay, including "pirating" of software, films, music, etc, or other deliberate violations of copyright (assuming for personal non-profit use), you should check "Not Okay" to question 1.

I realise a couple of people were confused. If you were one of them, you can change your poll answer by clicking on the poll number and clicking Fill Out Poll - your new answer will replace your old answer, so you won't be counted twice. /EDIT

[Poll #1349276]

Comments

[wherever.livejournal.com]

Personally I think you should just buy a lifetime license to a particular media and then forever be allowed to re-download it, get new copies, etc. It's really annoying when you have to replace a beloved CD a few years later because the media has worn out. You shouldn't have to pay for it again. Of course a smart person would back up their CD's and then not use the original media, but the way some regulations/policies are worded, even that is technically illegal.

I guess we're getting to that point with iPods and the like.

I download music that I don't pay for. My rationale is that if I like the artist I will support them in other ways. I'm a huge concert goer, and a much larger chunk of that dollar goes to the artist than they will ever see from CD sales. As it is now most of that money goes to the record companies, and they can choke on a bowl of dicks for all I care.

I do think that people should be paid for what they do, but the systems as we have them set up now are flawed, especially where music is concerned.