[Pheter]

Putting analogies aside, as everyone seems to focus on the analogy rather than the actual topic:

Person A made something and is granting access to their creation subject to certain conditions. Person B finds a way to access the creation while circumventing the creators conditions. This is clearly wrong.

[icebraining]

Some conditions are abusive. Try selling a non-perishable product in the EU with the condition that you provide less than two years of warranty and you can have a court telling you that.

Of course, this particular conditions are legal, but that doesn't mean they're not abusive too.

[jiggy2011]

At what point is a condition abusive? Usually you can set whatever conditions you like as long as they don't contradict existing laws.

If paying for music is so abusive then why not just make your own music instead?

[icebraining]

Usually you can set whatever conditions you like as long as they don't contradict existing laws.

What you can is not necessarily what you should be able to do.

If paying for music is so abusive then why not just make your own music instead?

I never said paying for music is abusive. I said not being able to share stuff you bought - or that someone has voluntarily shared with you - is abusive.

[Pheter]

If you don't like the conditions then you can decline and not have access to the creation.

[icebraining]

And if they don't want me to share the content they can not sell it to me.

[Pheter]

Why do you think it's okay to lie in this situation?

[icebraining]

Lie? I didn't lie. They never asked me.

[Pheter]

I might have misunderstood you. Do you mean that if they don't want you to share the content then they shouldn't sell it to you, because you will share it regardless of what the terms of the sale dictate?