Read my entire statement... if you are giving copies of something away... you're little caveat or addition doesn't really add any justification to this.
You're still taking something and copying it, making changes and then selling the copy. Even if you are buying another legitimate version of it, you are still selling a copy of it. Case closed, end of story... you are not selling the original once you rip it - and sell that ripped version. Re-sell the original disc/file you purchased all you like - once you copy/rip it, it's a whole other story...
And (the method I keep bringing up) actually costs the original creator money . . . how?
Yeah. It doesn't cost the original creator anything.
And the modifying party has taken credit for the original creator's work . . . how?
Oh yeah, he hasn't done that either.
. . . . which means that morally speaking, copyright principles don't apply to the situation anymore. The only conflict here is that the original creator doesn't like the alternate versions existing. That alone should not be grounds for legal action against the modifying party IMO. That is allowing the OC's opinion to intrude on the modifier's rights.
Copyright laws don't exist to keep original creators happy. They only exist to protect original creators' rights to profit off their work. When there is no challenge to the OC's profit potential, and there is no threat to the OC's credit for his work (which is really just a longer-term indirect profit potential), then the law should be done with the issue.
Last edited: