Timeline for Pirating software that has already been bought
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 21, 2016 at 16:17 | comment | added | msh210♦ | Related: judaism.stackexchange.com/q/13577 | |
| Jan 21, 2016 at 2:49 | comment | added | Fred | @YaacovDeane ... particularly (from the halachic side of it) since we can assume that the seller would not want the exchange reversed in case of violation of those unreasonable restrictions. | |
| Jan 21, 2016 at 2:48 | comment | added | Fred |
@YaacovDeane My first comment was about Jewish law, in which case, assuming the condition was valid, the exchange would be void and subject to reversal if the buyer violated it (assuming no prior written permission). | I'm not so certain that the seller would have cause for action if the buyer violated that condition by making himself a duplicate. See the precedents cited in my second comment. | Afterthought: Unreasonable restrictions imposed by the seller en masse in EULA "contracts," in which the buyer has no say but "yes" or "no," may have no legal or halachic significance...
|
|
| Jan 21, 2016 at 2:41 | comment | added | Yaacov Deane | And one last emphasis...they don't say they won't grant permission. Only that prior written permission to copy must be obtained before copying. | |
| Jan 21, 2016 at 2:38 | comment | added | Yaacov Deane | Cont'd. This reminds me of all those giant lawsuits that Sony and other record companies brought years ago to discourage illegal copying. | |
| Jan 21, 2016 at 2:36 | comment | added | Yaacov Deane | @Fred if it were just some statement of conditions, I might agree with your thought. But as can be seen from the links I provided, this has the elements of a true contract. The prospective purchaser has to sign electronically and it is automatically date stamped and location ID'd via the web. They also must check off their acceptance of terms. Following that, consideration, in the form of payment is made. Once the product is received from the seller it's locked in. If the buyer violated by making an illegal copy, the seller would have cause for action if they wanted to go for it. | |
| Jan 21, 2016 at 2:18 | comment | added | Fred | As far as dina d'malchusa dina, that may very well also not apply to these conditions; see SoftMan Products Co. v. Adobe Systems Inc. and Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology, which suggest that these sort of conditions may not be legally valid. | |
| Jan 21, 2016 at 2:17 | comment | added | Fred | Regarding making a personal duplicate copy contrary to conditions expressed by the seller, the Chazon Ish (EH 73:18) indicates that conditions of sale that merely control how the buyer can use the property are invalid ("ופטומי מילי נינהו"). See also Emek HaMishpat (4:37-38) who argues that "do not reproduce" conditions are invalid since the seller does not intend to carry out its halachic responsibilities in case the buyer violates the condition. | |
| Jan 20, 2016 at 18:29 | comment | added | Yoel Fievel Ben Avram | @YaacovDeane the question boils down to 1) is it stealing, or 2) is it breach of contract. It's not stealing per fair use, and the question of the validity of the implicit contract is not clear under civil law. This isn't an explicit contract like you see in Talmud, it's a contract that may or may not have formed automatically under operation of law. If the contract is valid, your analysis could be too. If it's not, then it's a derekh eres question of violating the DMCA for drm circumvention. | |
| Jan 20, 2016 at 17:33 | comment | added | Jake | I think I would generally agree with the sentiment of this post - that one should abide by the contract they "signed" with the original purchase. To be clear, I don't see anything morally wrong with retrieving the content you've already paid for, using method different from the original payment, in the case that the seller can't reasonably expect to make two sales (if that was common, you'd be more likely to have taken the DVDs with you). However, given that it's a part of the terms of service, you're already a party to a contract that, halachikally, you shouldn't break. | |
| Jan 20, 2016 at 14:59 | comment | added | Yaacov Deane | @ShamanSTK I can't speak to what the state of the civil law is in regard to "Fair Use". Particularly in the context of the numerous international agreements that have been made concerning this subject lately (like TPP), it would likely be even more restrictive, rather than less restrictive. But the simple idea is that a condition of purchase agreed to by the buyer is that any and all copying or reproduction must have the prior written consent of the seller. Without that consent, it would be forbidden. It has nothing to do with the subject of DRM circumvention. | |
| Jan 20, 2016 at 14:44 | comment | added | Yoel Fievel Ben Avram | The binding of the terms and conditions are an open question as fair use allows the digitization and use of media on other devices (or did when I studied the topic in law school). The question is DRM circumvention, which is not theft. Does halakha forbid security circumvention is a different question. | |
| Jan 20, 2016 at 14:01 | history | answered | Yaacov Deane | CC BY-SA 3.0 |