Let’s say I bought a license for Microsoft Office 2003. But, my dog has destroyed my disc. Is it legal for me to download the CD’s ISO images from a P2P network, given that I already have a license? How about for movies and music?
Similarly, would it be legal to operate a website where people who can prove (through some magical, foolproof mechanism) that they own valid licenses (or have bought a copy and not given it way) to software / movies / music can download new copies of them, if they’ve lost their own?
Hopefully this question doesn’t brush against the third rail of the SDMB.
I guarantee you this gets locked.
Maybe not today, but at some point someone will say “HOWTO” use a given p2psoft, and it’ll get locked.
Anyway… remember that with most (all?) filesharing networks, certainly with BitTorrent (sp?) if you’re downloading, you’re also, (almost always) by the design of the software architecture, uploading to at least one other person.
Since it’s 99% certain that other person doesn’t have a license, you’d be breaking the law.
Assuming that you still have your CD Key, there would be absolutely nothing illegal with borrowing a CD from a friend/neighbor/colleague and reinstalling the software using your own CD Key. This would be the preferred method, rather than downloading from a questionable source.
I’m sorry, but I do not believe this is entirely true. Just because the downloader may have a license to a copy does not mean that the person serving the copy has permission to serve the copy. One would think that would still absolve the person with the key, but I’m not sure that it does. I could be wrong, but IIRC this was debated on here a few times and links to the controlling legislation have been posted. Sadly, either my Search skills suck or the engine just isn’t working well.
Some software publishers allow you to download the installation files for their products. Aside from this, or something else sanctioned by the software publisher, I doubt such a website would be legal.
I hope this doesn’t become locked – it’s a valid question. This scenario is fairly common practice for people who purchase a full license for software whose copy-protection consists of challenge-and-response, which can render certain kinds of software utterly useless for some common, professional uses. While I believe this practice is ethical, I would like to know if it is legal.
If you’ve lost your disc, then you can call Microsoft Supplemental & Replacement Parts at (800) 360-7561 to order a new one.
I’m not going to condone warez on this board, however most software publishers are only interested in their users having the appropriate licenses - the installation media is nearly irrelevant. Indeed, many larger companies belong to Microsoft’s “Volume licensing” program; in this scenario, the company is provided with a single license key for XXX number of installations of XP\2003\Office and is free to use any media whatsoever to distribute it accordingly. In fact, at one event I attended, the MS rep even strongly suggested slipstreaming discs (which means to take an XP CD and install a Service Pack into the installation files; this by definition requires that you burn a new CD of the updates files).
So yeah - as long as you have the license, borrow it from a friend, look for chep OEM discs online, call MS, or download it. MS doesn’t care.
In most cases (and abundantly in the case of software offerings from Microsoft), the license is nothing much to do with the installable media at all; it defines permissions and restrictions regarding the installation and/or use of the software package.
In fact, you can buy additional install licenses for an install CD of, say, Windows XP - you don’t have to buy the media over again - it doesn’t really make any difference where you obtain the installable media, as long as you have the license to install and/or use it.
That said, there are good reasons why you personally might not want to obtain the software from other than the proper channels:
-It might not be the right version (so you use a lot of bandwidth downloading something that is not appropriate to, or installable under your license)
-It might be infected with some kind of malware
-The process of obtaining it (i.e. visiting Warez sites, installing filesharing software) may compromise the security of your machine.
-The software may be ‘cracked’ in some way that violates the EULA and you may not become aware of this until it causes you trouble.
With file-sharing, isn’t legality a murky subject? I mean in the sense that you’re not breaking criminal law. The punishment for file-sharing is a lawsuit, not incarceration. In that sense, the company can/would never punish you for downloading (uploading is a separate issue) a copy of what you already paid for. Doesn’t that make it “legal” in a sense?
Not all P2P violates the law. I have many MP3s I downloaded that are legal for me because I own a legal copy of the product. If I own a vinyly album of “Sgt. Pepper’s”, I can legally download MP3s of songs on that album.
The Powers that Be here have made an informed decision to go further than the law dictates on the subject of intellectual property. Some file sharing is legal, but discussion of file sharing is nonetheless not condoned here. Even if it is legal, the mods will not allow discussion of where the OP might obtain his Office disk images, for instance.
That said, isn’t there still some dispute about the legality of downloading MP3s from an album you already own?
I heartily agree with the principle underlying your statement, but i’m still not sure whether this issue has ever been legally resolved.
If i can delve into IMHO territory for a minute, i’ve always thought it rather inconsistent that, when people complain about the high price of CDs (especially given the very low price of blank media nowdays), the recording industry justifies it by telling us that the physical CD costs virtually nothing, but that we are paying a license fee for the musicians, producers, distributors, etc., etc.
Fair enough.
But, if this is the case, they should also be willing to sell you a CD at a dramatic discount if you can prove that you already have a fully legal copy of the music in another format. So, if you do, indeed, have a copy of “St. Peppers” on vinyl, this should entitle you to a cheap CD. After all, it’s not the media that costs the money.
I’m no copyright expert, but it seems to me that the remastering process undergone when the songs are transferred to CD creates different content, to which you don’t have a license.
