Theoretical ethical piracy question - Opinions please...

[CurrentlySober]

Lets say back in 1977 I bought a vinyl of 'Never Mind The Bolocks' by the Sex Pistols. And I played it so much, that it wore out, so in 1978 I bought another copy...

Then I bought it again, on cassete, but the cassette got chewed up, so I bought another cassette to replace it...

When CDs arrived in the early 90s, I bought a copy on CD, and when I moved to America, I didn't bring it with me, so I bought another CD in the USA... (Which I have since misplaced)

Now 6 years later, I buy an mp3 player. Am I supposed to buy it again, via itunes, or can I feel justified in going to the pirate bay?

After all, I have already bought and paid for the album 6 times in the past... So should I feel I need to pay again?

Let me just state that the reason I say this is theoretical, is simply because whatever I choose to do, is 100% my own biz, and I'm not asking for permission. I am simply interested in your thoughts on the above situation, from an ethical viewpoint!

Please Discuss...

[u-Bob]

Over here when you buy for example a CD or DVD, you have the legal right to make a backup copy. This backup can be an identical copy of the entire CD or DVD or you can decide to only backup part of the content. You are allowed to make a digital copy or record it on tape. Downloading the content form the internet is also considered acceptable and is legal.

[CurrentlySober]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

Over here when you buy for example a CD or DVD, you have the legal right to make a backup copy. This backup can be an identical copy of the entire CD or DVD or you can decide to only backup part of the content. You are allowed to make a digital copy or record it on tape. Downloading the content form the internet is also considered acceptable and is legal.

Where is 'Over Here'?

Not being conferential, but I have no idea where you are located

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by CurrentlySober

Where is 'Over Here'?

Not being conferential, but I have no idea where you are located

just across that tiny stretch of water that separates you guys from the mainland

[AdultKing]

From a pure ethics standpoint, you've had the use of the previous copies and disposed of them (albeit not willfully). Ethically you should buy it again.

If I buy a book and dispose of it through loss then someone else has the use of that book, hence the licensed material is in use by another person. It's not ethical to download a copy of the book as that would make two people having the use of the book for the price of one so to speak.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

Over here when you buy for example a CD or DVD, you have the legal right to make a backup copy. This backup can be an identical copy of the entire CD or DVD or you can decide to only backup part of the content. You are allowed to make a digital copy or record it on tape. Downloading the content form the internet is also considered acceptable and is legal.

"making a backup copy" assumes you are copying the work who's rights you've purchased (i.e. making a copy of the cd you've purchased, which is in your possession),.. Not downloading it where ever/whenever you want with the loose argument that you purchased it 20 years ago. "Making a backup copy" is not the same as "obtaining a backup copy"

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

Over here when you buy for example a CD or DVD, you have the legal right to make a backup copy.

Sadly you don't have that right in the UK. It is illegal to rip a CD you own to put on your MP3 device.

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

"making a backup copy" assumes you are copying the work who's rights you've purchased (i.e. making a copy of the cd you've purchased, which is in your possession),.. Not downloading it where ever/whenever you want with the loose argument that you purchased it 20 years ago. "Making a backup copy" is not the same as "obtaining a backup copy"

The law allows people to make a backup copy. It does not specify the technical means that are allowed to be used in the process.

We actually had someone ask a similar question in a TV show last summer. They were discussing the issue of piracy and there was a movie director, a rep from the local MPAA equivalent, a professor specialized in the legal side of things, a musician,... on the panel.

One of the questions they talked about (the audience could tweet questions or ask them on facebook) was from someone who wanted to watch a movie (she had bought the DVD) on her netbook (no DVD player). The panel agreed that it was legal for her to make a backup copy in a format she could watch on her netbook. Someone on the panel said "I'm sure there's software you can buy to do this". A follow up question then came in: "What if she downloads the movie in a format she can watch on her netbook instead of first buying additional software to convert the movie?" The law professor agreed that that would simply be another way to achieve the same result.

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Sadly you don't have that right in the UK. It is illegal to rip a CD you own to put on your MP3 device.

In that case (and given the international nature of this board), I guess it would be best to narrow things down to the OP's question, namely the ethics of the matter.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

In that case (and given the international nature of this board), I guess it would be best to narrow things down to the OP's question, namely the ethics of the matter.

Absolutely, I was just saying, because it is such a ridiculous law and lets people see how backward the UK is.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

The law allows people to make a backup copy. It does not specify the technical means that are allowed to be used in the process.

We actually had someone ask a similar question in a TV show last summer. They were discussing the issue of piracy and there was a movie director, a rep from the local MPAA equivalent, a professor specialized in the legal side of things, a musician,... on the panel.

One of the questions they talked about (the audience could tweet questions or ask them on facebook) was from someone who wanted to watch a movie (she had bought the DVD) on her netbook (no DVD player). The panel agreed that it was legal for her to make a backup copy in a format she could watch on her netbook. Someone on the panel said "I'm sure there's software you can buy to do this". A follow up question then came in: "What if she downloads the movie in a format she can watch on her netbook instead of first buying additional software to convert the movie?" The law professor agreed that that would simply be another way to achieve the same result.

Sure, but you are making a copy of the actual work which you purchased (i.e. the actual cd you purchased) of which you have the right to make a copy. I don't think you have the right to make the argument "i bought this record 23 years ago, so i'm good to download it and not pay for it today".

[Paul Markham]

No company, to my knowledge, has prosecuted anyone for making a back up copy.

However losing, wearing out, destroying something doesn't give you a right to a free one. I wish it did, but it doesn't.

[NewNick]

Originally Posted by CurrentlySober

Lets say back in 1977 I bought a vinyl of 'Never Mind The Bolocks' by the Sex Pistols. And I played it so much, that it wore out, so in 1978 I bought another copy...

Then I bought it again, on cassete, but the cassette got chewed up, so I bought another cassette to replace it...

When CDs arrived in the early 90s, I bought a copy on CD, and when I moved to America, I didn't bring it with me, so I bought another CD in the USA... (Which I have since misplaced)

Now 6 years later, I buy an mp3 player. Am I supposed to buy it again, via itunes, or can I feel justified in going to the pirate bay?

After all, I have already bought and paid for the album 6 times in the past... So should I feel I need to pay again?

Let me just state that the reason I say this is theoretical, is simply because whatever I choose to do, is 100% my own biz, and I'm not asking for permission. I am simply interested in your thoughts on the above situation, from an ethical viewpoint!

Please Discuss...

Would you feel entitled to walk into a record shop and steal another copy of the vinyl ? Would you consider that you were entitled to do this because you had bought a previous copy.

I suspect not.

I further suspect that if you were the record shop owner you would feel that you were within your rights to stop some feckless prick from stealing your stock, and I can guarantee that you would not give a flying fuck how entitled the thieving scroat believed him self to be.

I really do not understand the argument here. Stealing is against the law.

You are only even considering stealing someone else's property because there is no mechanism to punish you for doing so.

[lucas131]

rip your cd and sleep well, no?

[CurrentlySober]

Originally Posted by NewNick

Would you feel entitled to walk into a record shop and steal another copy of the vinyl ? Would you consider that you were entitled to do this because you had bought a previous copy.

I suspect not.

I further suspect that if you were the record shop owner you would feel that you were within your rights to stop some feckless prick from stealing your stock, and I can guarantee that you would not give a flying fuck how entitled the thieving scroat believed him self to be.

I really do not understand the argument here. Stealing is against the law.

You are only even considering stealing someone else's property because there is no mechanism to punish you for doing so.

Utterly Incorrect:

I would not be walking into a store, and removing an item of physical property, that had been purchased for resale by the store.

I would simply be getting a digital version, of an old album, which I had ALREADY paid for, over 6 times in the past...

I cannot steal something that is not a physical item, if I have paid for it. Like I say, not once, twice, three, four or five times in the past - But 6 times (In the last 35 years)

But thanks for the input anyway - Like I said in the OP, this is a THEORETICAL argument, and I DO appreciate your input - Despite completely disagreeing with you

.

[NewNick]

Originally Posted by CurrentlySober

Utterly Incorrect:

I would not be walking into a store, and removing an item of physical property, that had been purchased for resale by the store.

I would simply be getting a digital version, of an old album, which I had ALREADY paid for, over 6 times in the past...

I cannot steal something that is not a physical item, if I have paid for it. Like I say, not once, twice, three, four or five times in the past - But 6 times (In the last 35 years)

But thanks for the input anyway - Like I said in the OP, this is a THEORETICAL argument, and I DO appreciate your input - Despite completely disagreeing with you

.

This is the problem - digital or otherwise does not make a difference.

It is not the fault of the copyright holder that you no longer have access to previous purchases.

When you made your original purchase you were not given complete rights to the work. You were not allowed to use it for financial gain, or broadcast on the radio for instance. You purchased the limited right of listening to the work from the medium upon which it was delivered to you.

If this was not the case you would not have had to purchase further copies at any time since.

Just because the work can now be delivered to you in another format does not give you the right to take it without giving due consideration to the holder of the copyright.

It is theft.

The discussion is a moral one not a legal one, and the shop analogy is important because if you had to sneak into a shop evading the security to steal the product with the threat of being caught and punished, you would probably not bother. The fact that the theft is easy and will go unnoticed is why you would even consider it in the first place.

[BIGTYMER]

Once you've said good bye and safe journey and flush your poo does it still belong to you?

[CurrentlySober]

Originally Posted by BIGTYMER

Once you've said good bye and safe journey and flush your poo does it still belong to you?

Yeah right... Like I actually 'Flush'...

[raymor]

I think it's an actual gray area without an ideal answer in today's market. Really you should buy an mp3 upgrade license for twenty-five cents, but they don't sell those. One way to look at it is vinyl is Windows 3.1, mp3 is Windows XP. Having bought 3.1 doesn't give you the right to "steal" XP, but a Windows upgrade is less costly than the initial purchase.

If you get Strongbox, you're getting several things from us, and we're getting paid for several things. You're getting installation service and new customer support, and you're getting the right to use that version for as long as you care to use it - eventually you'll probably want to upgrade. We're getting paid for the install, the new customer support, for the year I spent developing version 1.0 without getting paid yet, and the thousands of hours of development since then. A year or two down the road you can get an update at a much lower cost. With the update, you're buying continued support, which costs us less than new customer support, and you're buying the least two years of development. You get less of an increase than from the initial purchase, it costs us less, and yoy pay less.

I think it's similar - outdated software is like outdated music formats, you don't want to carry a phonograph around, and vinyl does wear out, so you want to replace and upgrade, but ideally you should get credit for already buying the license for the music, thus upgrade pricing.

[BIGTYMER]

Originally Posted by CurrentlySober

Yeah right... Like I actually 'Flush'...

[CurrentlySober]

Originally Posted by NewNick

This is the problem - digital or otherwise does not make a difference.

It is not the fault of the copyright holder that you no longer have access to previous purchases.

When you made your original purchase you were not given complete rights to the work. You were not allowed to use it for financial gain, or broadcast on the radio for instance. You purchased the limited right of listening to the work from the medium upon which it was delivered to you.

If this was not the case you would not have had to purchase further copies at any time since.

Just because the work can now be delivered to you in another format does not give you the right to take it without giving due consideration to the holder of the copyright.

It is theft.

The discussion is a moral one not a legal one, and the shop analogy is important because if you had to sneak into a shop evading the security to steal the product with the threat of being caught and punished, you would probably not bother. The fact that the theft is easy and will go unnoticed is why you would even consider it in the first place.

Valid points, and again, thanks for the opinion, but a rebuttal, if I may?


Lets say that I had taken one of the 2 CDs I had purchased, (I'm not gonna talk about vinyl's or cassettes, cause thats just too long ago) & I had made a backup copy, for my own use, on a blank CD, and put it in a bank vault...

Now, 6 years on, I collect my CD from the bank, pop t into my mac, and click 'Transfer to iTunes'...

I now have my CD, in MP3 format, on my iPod...

What is the REAL difference? Providing (As is my point) that I have PAID SIX times previously, for the EXACT SAME MUSIC???

Not an 'Anniversary Edition' or anything thats changed... But, the EXACT SAME MUSIC?



.

[CaptainHowdy]

There is no such thing as "porn" or "pirate" ethics ...

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by NewNick

This is the problem - digital or otherwise does not make a difference.

Here's a picture to help you understand, because clearly words aren't working.



HTH

your friend

damian

xoxoxo

[CurrentlySober]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

No company, to my knowledge, has prosecuted anyone for making a back up copy.

However losing, wearing out, destroying something doesn't give you a right to a free one. I wish it did, but it doesn't.

Lets say I legitimately joined your site, and stayed a member for 6 months, before cancelling...

A month later, my HDD breaks, and I lose the 6 videos that I have downloaded while being a paying member...

So I hit you up via email, and say 'Hey Paul... I was a member of your site, for 6 months, and only download 6 of my fav vids - one a month... But my hard drive crashed! I really LOVED those 6 vids? Any chance you could replace them for me?"

You are able to check stats etc, and see that I am telling the truth. Do you say NO - FUCK YOU! or, let me have the 6 vids back, which I lost to 'an act of god'?

[NewNick]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Here's a picture to help you understand, because clearly words aren't working.



HTH

your friend

damian

xoxoxo

Fuck me Damian - a cartoon downloaded from the internet put forward as legal description to define what is and what is not theft. What a finely honed legal brain you have. As I said before you really are wasted here. High office is your calling.

I know it will be a huge sacrifice - but please do it for us.

I may start an epetition.....

[NewNick]

Originally Posted by CurrentlySober

Valid points, and again, thanks for the opinion, but a rebuttal, if I may?


Lets say that I had taken one of the 2 CDs I had purchased, (I'm not gonna talk about vinyl's or cassettes, cause thats just too long ago) & I had made a backup copy, for my own use, on a blank CD, and put it in a bank vault...

Now, 6 years on, I collect my CD from the bank, pop t into my mac, and click 'Transfer to iTunes'...

I now have my CD, in MP3 format, on my iPod...

What is the REAL difference? Providing (As is my point) that I have PAID SIX times previously, for the EXACT SAME MUSIC???

Not an 'Anniversary Edition' or anything thats changed... But, the EXACT SAME MUSIC?



.

That is a different argument to your original point.

However UK law does not allow you to make the copy in the first place. So I suppose the question is in which country did you a) purchase, b) copy, and c) store the CD.

[CurrentlySober]

Originally Posted by NewNick

That is a different argument to your original point.

No, not really - The only difference is the 'What If?' angle...

Originally Posted by NewNick

However UK law does not allow you to make the copy in the first place. So I suppose the question is in which country did you a) purchase, b) copy, and c) store the CD.

You can choose (Within the Theoretical senario) Either the UK, where I bought my first CD or the USA where I bought another...

Bottom line (Despite what you may think) is that I am NOT trying to win an internet argument... Just to open a valid discussion on the use of 'The Pirate Bay' for 'Legitimate???' reasons... ???

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by NewNick

Fuck me Damian - a cartoon downloaded from the internet put forward as legal description to define what is and what is not theft.

Yeah, well, whatisface was thinking downloading a file is the same as stealing something from a shop. So I was trying to help explain how it is different.

Do you disagree with the image? Care to explain how it is wrong?

Copyright infringement is not theft. It is illegal and wrong, but it is not theft.

HTH.

[CurrentlySober]

Come on peeps!

Over 100 views, but just 8 votes? VOTE ON ! Its anon FFS!!!

[NewNick]

Originally Posted by CurrentlySober

No, not really - The only difference is the 'What If?' angle...



You can choose (Within the Theoretical senario) Either the UK, where I bought my first CD or the USA where I bought another...

Bottom line (Despite what you may think) is that I am NOT trying to win an internet argument... Just to open a valid discussion on the use of 'The Pirate Bay' for 'Legitimate???' reasons... ???

I am going to keep it simple.

If the copyright holder is deprived of his rightful due consideration then you are morally and legally wrong.

Just because governments have been slow to work out what the kiddies have been up to does not change what right thinking citizens know to be true.

Neither is the moral or legal issue altered by the fact that measures taken to date have not cured the problem.

These are all scurrilous arguments.

(In UK law the term "right thinking" has been validated and accepted as a measure of where the moral line should be drawn.

e.g. The right thinking citizen would report help a victim of crime and report said crime to the relevant authorities. The right thinking citizen takes reasonable steps to ensure that they do not break the law and expects the law to treat them kindly and protect their property.

So for my American friends in this context, right thinking has no religious or neo-con meaning.)

[NewNick]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Yeah, well, whatisface was thinking downloading a file is the same as stealing something from a shop. So I was trying to help explain how it is different.

Do you disagree with the image? Care to explain how it is wrong?

Copyright infringement is not theft. It is illegal and wrong, but it is not theft.

HTH.

If you take something without paying the legal owner it is theft. Correct ?

In the case of piracy the legitamate copyright owner does not get paid, yet you have access to the work. Correct ?

Therefore you have the goods and you did not pay for them.

Now I dont really care if the pirates have managed to put together a convoluted argument that makes them feel better about their theft.

The odd thing is that the pirates are so concerned that they are not classed as thieves. Pirates good - thieves bad. This is so crucial to those that support/condone digital theft. It is quite bizarre as to why they are comfortable with being called a pirate, but not a thief. That somehow they have some romantic notion of sailing the high seas with Master bates makes it all ok.

Whats even more odd is that damian is so keen to get us all to realise that piracy is not theft. He even draws pictures for us.

What the fuck does it matter what you call it ? Well thats easy - if it is not really theft its ok to carry on stealing.

I believe it was Judge Pickles who said it was not really proper rape, because we all know what girls really mean when they say "no".

[u-Bob]

If you buy a car and it breaks down after the warranty has expired, are you allowed to use 3rd party tools and equipment to fix it (to restore the functionality you paid for)?

When you buy a CD, you're not paying for a plastic disc. Otherwise, it wouldn't matter to you which disc you bought. It wouldn't matter if it's a disc with music from the Sex Pistols or Justin Bieber on it. When you buy a CD, you are paying for the right to listen to certain numbers. If that disc breaks down, imo, you still have the right to listen to the music you paid for. Whether you restore that functionality by using your own backup copy or by copying it from a friend's CD or by downloading it doesn't matter. You paid for the music, not a plastic disc.

[Dirty Dane]

You should not ask the general opinion but the individual copyright holder. That's the hole point with copyrights. If they give you permission, you can do it. If not, you can't.

[Tom_PM]

Just last night I went on youtube and found a song from an LP that I own, extracted the audio to mp3, moved it to a portable player and listened to it. I own the LP and therefore own the song already.

I'd consider getting a portable book reader if I could download all of the books I already own to it. And it really should be possible.

[2MuchMark]

This is even supported by iTunes. Insert your CD and run iTunes to make a copy. It will even find the album cover art for you after you're done for display on your computer or iPhone.

[Ron Bennett]

Copyright law is corrupt. So why follow bad laws, and hence many don't. Imho, copyright should be time limited to 20 years maximum.

**********'s suggestion points out a way of getting a legal copy.

[Ron Bennett]

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

You should not ask the general opinion but the individual copyright holder. That's the hole point with copyrights. If they give you permission, you can do it. If not, you can't.

No that's not the point of copyright at all.

Many content producers will argue it's 100% their work - no, not exactly, most everything out there is built upon other people's work (Disney sure goes out of their way to protect their copyrights, but consider the basis of much of their content is copied from earlier ideas and works)... Many artists, writers, etc like to believe their idea is 100% totally unique, it's not - most everything is a derivative work of something else; much of the contribution being that of society as a whole...

Copyright is intended to be very time limited to encourage creativity; control was never intended to be absolute.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by NewNick

If you take something without paying the legal owner it is theft. Correct ?

No.

"In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it"

Piracy is copyright infringement, not theft.

Did you not understand the picture?

It's still bad and wrong and illegal, but it isn't theft.

[NewNick]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

No.

"In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it"

Piracy is copyright infringement, not theft.

Did you not understand the picture?

It's still bad and wrong and illegal, but it isn't theft.

Yes we get your point Damian.

Theft = bad.

Piracy = not so bad.

Rape = surprise sex.

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by CurrentlySober

Lets say back in 1977 I bought a vinyl of 'Never Mind The Bolocks' by the Sex Pistols. And I played it so much, that it wore out, so in 1978 I bought another copy...

Then I bought it again, on cassete, but the cassette got chewed up, so I bought another cassette to replace it...

When CDs arrived in the early 90s, I bought a copy on CD, and when I moved to America, I didn't bring it with me, so I bought another CD in the USA... (Which I have since misplaced)

Now 6 years later, I buy an mp3 player. Am I supposed to buy it again, via itunes, or can I feel justified in going to the pirate bay?

After all, I have already bought and paid for the album 6 times in the past... So should I feel I need to pay again?

Let me just state that the reason I say this is theoretical, is simply because whatever I choose to do, is 100% my own biz, and I'm not asking for permission. I am simply interested in your thoughts on the above situation, from an ethical viewpoint!

Please Discuss...

I honestly don't think you should have to pay for it again -- but the situation you outlined is not the problem with piracy. It's not people wanting to "update" their CD collections. In most cases, it's the wholesale copying and distribution on a mass scale for anyone to download, regardless of whether or not they already own the material.

[globofun]

Originally Posted by CurrentlySober

Yeah right... Like I actually 'Flush'...

[CurrentlySober]

Originally Posted by globofun

Nahhh... Not my toilet...

I dont 'WIPE' either...

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by NewNick

Yes we get your point Damian.

Theft = bad.

Piracy = not so bad.

No, the point is, and gosh you do struggle with this don't you, is that:

Theft /= Piracy

Theft = Bad

Piracy = Bad

HTH

Your pal

Damian

xoxoxo

[Tom_PM]

Is it piracy is the real question though, right? I dont think having a copy of a work you've paid for and own is piracy at all. If you distribute something without rights to distribute, you're pirating IMHO.

[CurrentlySober]

Originally Posted by NewNick

Whats even more odd is that damian is so keen to get us all to realise that piracy is not theft. He even draws pictures for us.

Sorry Damo, but I DID LOL at this

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by CurrentlySober

Sorry Damo, but I DID LOL at this

It's sweet he thought I drew it for him, and didn't realise I just got it from the internet.

It's quite a famous pic for explaining to people that struggle with reading what the difference it.

But laugh away, everyone should be happy. It's Friday and I've finished my work for the day and am off to do a gig at a comedy club later.

[NewNick]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

It's sweet he thought I drew it for him, and didn't realise I just got it from the internet.

It's quite a famous pic for explaining to people that struggle with reading what the difference it.

Its quite a famous pic created by people that would like to have us believe that the cuddly little pirates are not really common thieves.

Damian actually thinks that a cartoon he pinched from someones website is a legal definition laid down in the statutes through acts of Parliament and legal precedent.

Now thats sweet.

[Dirty Dane]

Originally Posted by Ron Bennett

No that's not the point of copyright at all.

Many content producers will argue it's 100% their work - no, not exactly, most everything out there is built upon other people's work (Disney sure goes out of their way to protect their copyrights, but consider the basis of much of their content is copied from earlier ideas and works)... Many artists, writers, etc like to believe their idea is 100% totally unique, it's not - most everything is a derivative work of something else; much of the contribution being that of society as a whole...

Copyright is intended to be very time limited to encourage creativity; control was never intended to be absolute.

Copyrights has some limitations in different jurisdictions, but you are talking about other forms of property and violations. Things like plagiarism, patents and trademarks.

Copyright itself isn't about how unique the work is. It's about who holding and granting the rights. And that's the point: If you are not granted the permission from the copyright holder (or by the limitation such as time or fair usage), then you can't ask the public opinion. This is not ethical question, but a technical one.

[DWB]

If you bought it before I see no problem downloading it, especially in the case of just wanting to change formats.

[RubyGoodnight]

Without trying to sound all philosophical, I think it depends on what you believe you are purchasing when you buy music. Are you buying the physical disk/tape/memory that holds the songs, or are you buying access to the intangible music itself?

'Music' can't be lost/broken/worn out, but the object that holds it can. If you are downloading the music again, are you really pirating it, since you owned it in the first place? Guess it depends on what you believe you've purchased, or what the seller believes he's sold.