Bitplayer: I am aware of the "fair use" concept but consider it to be more of a legal argument than an ethical one. (You asked if it was ethical, not legal.) As the final remark in my initial posting suggests, I do not consider the two to be necessarily equivalent. Basically, I think it is unethical to agree initially to a set of conditions and then later ignore the fact of your agreement. It seems very much like acquiring something under false pretences. Please note that I do not claim to always act in concert with my conscience. As I also suggested, I frankly do not believe that most of us are completely governed by our ethical postures. This is probably a good thing as ethical codes tend to be somewhat inflexible by nature. The root problem is that ethical standards are inherently artificial constructs of our imaginations and desires. They are not natural laws of the universe such as gravitational attraction or the speed of light. And so we have a tendency to adapt our ethics to our circumstances. This of course makes a mockery of the entire concept and, historically, ethical stances have indeed proven to be a moving target. I appreciate that some feel otherwise about the sanctity of ethics. However, the mere fact that we have found it necessary to invent saints implies that this feeling is far from universal. - Jack