Is this morally wrong?

[pcsailor]

To determine whether the use of a work is a fair use, the following four factors are to be considered: purpose and character of the use, nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the whole, and the effect of the use on the potential market.

[/quote]
Fascinating
It says "to be considered", which leaves alot of room to interpretation.
But does this mean if we obtain a copy, by any means, and use it only for personal use, it would be considered 'fair use'?
Interesting comments
Phil

[wavic]

Hm!
If a code snippet from a book is just like a code that I have in production an have some huge amount of profit can the author pretend for a percentage just because this is the most obvious way to write the code for a certain purpose and both snippets are the same?

[metulburr]

It says "to be considered", which leaves alot of room to interpretation.
But does this mean if we obtain a copy, by any means, and use it only for personal use, it would be considered 'fair use'?

Im pretty sure they said it that way because it leaves it vague enough for people to not know, and yet a lawyer could entrap them with it if need be. "Home use" still can be consider illegal for them if they wanted to push it. But they would not push it as hard as someone making copies and selling it on the street. If they are losing a little money from one not buying it thats one thing. If one is selling bootlegs, plagiarizing, etc. or otherwise making a profit from it, thats another thing.

[wavic]

Well, the guy on the street can say that he/she has sold two books only so for how much money they can sue him/her? How can they prove their amount of losses?
The whole situation can quickly become a comedy show. It's not so simple at all.

[metulburr]

Well the only ones who really put up a fight are RIAA and MPAA. You might have a solid defense in court, but it really comes down to how good is your lawyer. A little guy usually cannot stand up against the money from an organization. They will however do everything in their power to make headlines catching pirates. And they will surely try and have before. Some are quite silly and comical while others will disgust you. However movies and music are more on the radar than books. themselves anyways.

somewhat back to the original question...

Is it morally wrong that one proxies them self to another country when Youtube says that they cant watch a video because they live in America? Some would call that censorship; and their ethical and political duty to make that public for their fellow citizens. Some would call them pirates while others call them heroes.

Is it morally wrong for a college student to buy a book to get it for $5 on Facebook Market? Rather than $350 from the college bookstore or $329 on Amazon. They are not receiving the money and yet the student is going to pass the course with that book.

Is it morally wrong to sell any item at a yard sale? The company who makes the item is losing out on your purchase while another person profits from it.


If your looking for a morality answer from this thread, i think this post best suites you.

[ichabod801]

Is it morally wrong that one proxies them self to another country when Youtube says that they cant watch a video because they live in America?

That's an interesting question by the standard I use (don't take what isn't freely offered). The author may be willing to freely offer it to you, but YouTube isn't. Then it becomes the question of who has the right to offer. Take a reverse case. A thief freely offers you something that you know he stole. That would still be stealing in some form, because the thief doesn't have the right to offer. So unless the author has surrendered the rights to the video to YouTube, I would not call that immoral.

[wavic]

Should I feel bad if I fix my car by myself instead of calling the mechanic? He//she is losing money if I do that?

[ichabod801]

Should I feel bad if I fix my car by myself instead of calling the mechanic? He//she is losing money if I do that?

Possibly, but I wouldn't call it stealing.

[pcsailor]

Possibly, but I wouldn't call it stealing.

'Possibly'!?
Not to disrespect your opinion, but the idea that you are stealing from a car mechanic or even the manufacturers dealership service dep't when you service your car yourself is ridiculous. You bought the car and you have 100% the right to do what you want with your possession within the confines of the law. Very flawed thinking to consider this illegal.

---

When it comes down to it, if I'm interested in a book and it's $xx.xx on Amazon, but free if I add 'filetype:pdf' to the search, I have a stronger obligation to saving money for my family then to an unknown person responsible for the book. This may not be a popular viewpoint, and I wouldn't like it if I had a book for sal, but I see no reason to alter my perspective.
Phil

[ichabod801]

'Possibly'!?
Not to disrespect your opinion, but the idea that you are stealing from a car mechanic or even the manufacturers dealership service dep't when you service your car yourself is ridiculous. You bought the car and you have 100% the right to do what you want with your possession within the confines of the law. Very flawed thinking to consider this illegal.

Excuse me? I did not say it was stealing. In fact, I clearly said I thought it wasn't stealing. And I said nothing whatsoever about it being illegal. All I said was that perhaps (that is, in certain circumstances) you might have reason to feel bad about it. Like, you're really rich and the mechanic is having trouble feeding his family, you might have reason to feel bad if you tried to save a little more money you didn't really need rather than helping him out.

You, on the other hand, put words in my mouth and attacked me for things I never said. That's out of line.