An interesting but misleading discussion. There is only one true scenario and it is that someone owns a product and has released it for use under a prescribed set of conditions. Any attempt to circumvent such conditions is subversive. It does not matter if these conditions are unreasonable, unfair or inconvenient nor are they subject to modifications based upon some hypothetical future or set of circumstances. Using it otherwise is in direct opposition to the owner's stated desire solely for self benefit and is therefore ultimately unethical if ethics is defined as including a moral philosophy granting intellectual and property rights to originating individuals. Now I won't lose any sleep just because some stranger decides the rules do not apply to him or her. But such strangers may benefit if they simply admit to this rather than seeking validation through some convulted process of self justification. A whore who insists upon being married in a white gown fools none but herself. (not that I have any moral qualms about prostitutes) An ethical stance is adopted for one's self, not for another. As such it does not matter if the target of your behaviour still exists or not. Nor does it matter if anyone is harmed by your action. Any action contrary to one's personal beliefs is a betrayal of such beliefs. In such circumstances one must either admit to moral weakness or re-examine one's ethical code. Either way, one simply discovers that "ethics" is a fluid, ever changing state of being- a chimera. Not surprisingly one also discovers that "ethics" is not consistent from one individual to the next. Therefore discussions of this sort, while mildy amusing, will remain always unresolved. Of course, "ethical" should not be confused with "legal". The law has much sharper teeth than philosophy's. - Jack