[Terrin]

If your interpretation is correct and Mac Journal was talking about copies, I completely agree. I knew that would happen sooner or later!

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I disagree with Macworld's take on this as well. Under the first sale doctrine you generally can give away a legally acquired copy of a copyrighted work, the same as you can give away a music CD or book that you legally own. Companies have tried to limit this right, but the courts have generally struck down such attempts. There is a bit of confusion in the area of software, but most courts have upheld the first sale doctrine here as well.

---

Keep in mind that this wasn't Macworld's view; this was an article by Mac Journals republished here.
As for what they wrote, I think what they meant -- and this is admittedly just my interpretation of the article -- is that you can't give away or sell a copy of the Superguide.
You're correct, Terrin, that that the First Sale Doctrine allows you to transfer ownership of a particular copy of a copyrighted work -- including a Macworld Superguide -- that you've purchased. (Of course, "transfer" means that you don't keep a copy for yourself.)

---

[Deano1964]

Quote:

---

After your last couple posts, it seems clear that the real issue here is your cynicism

---

Guilty as charged, Dan! /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
As far as your iTunes library goes, if you say it's 100% legal, I have no reason to doubt you. As for the rest of the Macworld staff -- well, neither of us knows the answer to that, do we? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif
Let's be clear on what we're talking about. We weren't talking about wholesale file sharing. We were talking about making a copy of a CD for a friend, burning a playlist to CD and giving it to someone, or making a photocopy of a Macworld article to share with friends.
You made a point to cast this as a moral issue, and I suggest that you see it that way because you have a personal financial stake in it.
One could argue that the behavior I've just described isn't immoral at all, shouldn't be illegal, and, furthermore, it's in the public interest that it be allowed. (Others here have already made the case, I won't rehash it.)
You might not see it in quite such blank and white terms if you weren't so personally involved. Now, I don't think there's anything wrong with self-interest, but we ought to name it what it is.
Really, that's all I'm trying to say.

A lot of this exchange (for me, anyway) has been about enjoying a lively discussion, and for that, I thank you.
Anyway, I'm done being contrary for now!

[MyMac8MyPC]

Quote:

---

Why censure?

---

I didn't say censure, I said censor. There is a difference, and it happens all the time on forums by admins. I was just expressing how I'm happy it hasn't happened in this thread so that everyone could learn both sides of the story on this important issue /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif