Bah, SenorBeef beat me to it. Yes, I perceive the same “moral component” here, since when you buy a printer that uses only that particular type of cartridge, and that says in the manual, “Using anybody else’s cartridges will void the warranty on this,” making it clear that they expect you to use only their cartridges, you’re implicitly promising to buy only their cartridges.
However, I have to say that it’s not a very big moral component. It’s similar to the way vacuum cleaner manufacturers always say in their manuals, “Use only Our Brand of bags on your Our Brand vacuum,” but you go ahead and use generic bags, because it’s cheaper.
And it would be more debatable if the refill kits actually worked, which IMO they do not.
Ah! But what if there were a contractual obligation involved?
You know how most software comes with “license agreements” that you’re supposed to read when you install the software, but which practically no one actually does read? Well, what if when you bought the printer and installed the printer’s software (without which the printer wouldn’t work), there was a little clause hidden about 3/4 of the way down in that License Agreement which said:
I have been told that printers cost more to make than to buy, and that the companies make profits by selling the ink cartridges.
In a similar model to mobile phone companies.
If true you could say that by buying non-brand ink cartridges you will push the price of printers up (Like the recent price hike of mobile 'phones in the UK.) But that’s just business I guess . . . . so the question is, is Capitalism morally wrong?
Aha! But what if while I was installing my printer software, did not get to or know of the existence the lisence agreement, and then my ever mischevious kitten lept onto the keyboard and agreed to it without my knowledge. Then would I be morally bound only to use their ink cartridges? Would my cat?
Oh, and to continue my previous statement, what if I chose not to agree to the lisence agreement, but since I opened up my printer, could not return it? What exactly would be moral then?
Or if I bought the printer, but used different printer software, one without an EULA. Then I should NOT be contractually bound to use their cartridges, because I never agreed to in the first place, but I could still use their printer.
Questions like these are why I’m considering a career in law.
The assumption is that the printer’s software is necessary to run the printer, that no one else makes software compatible with that particular printer, and that if you don’t accept the license agreement you may return the printer for a full refund.
(Clicking the “I Accept” button is considered prima facia evidence that you accept the license agreement, though, so this still doesn’t get your kitten off the hook.)
Another assumption is the assumption that anything you write into a license agreement is automagically binding and enforceable. It’s a specious assumption, too.
I say it’s ethical to disregard that bit of the license and continue to refill cartridges. The manufacturer has no moral right to keep you from using the printer that you rightfully own.
Before you do so, consider how much of your time will be spent on interesting ground breaking questions, and how much will be spent on mundane routine legal work with little intellectual interest. I feel sorry for people who decide to take up law because they’ve watched law drama on TV, in which every case is intellectually, socially, emotionally and/or morally interesting, and in which the lawyers swan about in nice clothes having eloquent and dramatic meetings only to discover that working in a legal office is nothing like that at all.
But…but…I wanna be a lawyer so I can wear beautiful silk blouses and have a laptop and a briefcase and argue cases in front of the Supreme Court and get my client’s conviction overturned and then he can say with tears in his eyes, “Blah blah blah something” and then I can go out to dinner at a fancy restaurant with somebody who looks like George Clooney…
Actually, I’ve never seen a law drama on TV, period. I simply enjoy researching particular issues, and formulating arguments based on such things. From what I’ve seen, it’s really a good use of my talents.
I’m sorry if what I said previously was an oversimplification of how I feel on the matter.
PS: I wasn’t lying when I said I never saw a Law drama on TV.
I (and the late Richard Feynmann) feel the same way about people who decide to study physics because they’ve seen Cosmos and want to find out all that neat stuff about black holes and cosmology and quantum-tunnelling building interstellar rockets, only to discover that their physics courses consist mostly of such topics as inclined planes and heat flow.
Actually I was almost more interested in the perspective of the refill kit manufacturers, trying to make money off other companies’ products, but never mind, I won’t bother you with stuff like this again.
—The manufacturer has no moral right to keep you from using the printer that you rightfully own.—
Okay, let’s spice this up with a question from another industry: DVDs and video games. Just like you can do things so as to beat a printer’s chip, or buy a kit to refill its cartridge with someone else’s ink, you can hack a DVD or video game console so that it can play games: however, these companies seem to be hot to charge you for a crime for doing so: on the idea that the box you own contains intellectual property ideas that you are exposing and violating by opening it up. Could printer makers pull the same stunt, either with current tech or by redesigning their printers?
The only legal leg they have to stand on is the DMCA, which outlaws circumvention of a copy-protection device. It doesn’t exactly apply to chipping a video game console or DVD player (DVD encryption/region coding doesn’t prevent you from making a copy), which is why mod chips are still available.
Morally, they have no leg to stand on at all. It would be like Chevrolet pressing charges against car owners who look under the hood, claiming that their fuel injector is a secret which the owners are exposing. If you own a car, you have every right to know how it works.
It would be very difficult to make a DMCA issue out of printer cartridges.
Yes, I perceive the same “moral component” here, since when you buy a printer that uses only that particular type of cartridge, and that says in the manual, “Using anybody else’s cartridges will void the warranty on this,” making it clear that they expect you to use only their cartridges, you’re implicitly promising to buy only their cartridges.