I could be wrong but is there an essential part of this question missing? The way I am reading it seems to suggest that you want to create something which looks exactly like the proof of purchase receipt from a company, complete with their watermark and a coupon code. You then go on to wonder if using such a forgery would be a âfaultâ by a person it was shared with. (This sound suspiciously like âI am only asking for a friend âŠâ) Wow - Looks like a call-out for the man from Morals-R-Us âŠ Yes, in this case, there would be a âFaultâ - that of Forgery obviously. If the âperson who first downloaded and sharedâ was totally unaware - and could not reasonably have expected - it was a forgery then the âFaultâ (read illegality here) is entirely with the person who created it. Even if t are passing it out for free t are still depriving the rightful owner of a portion of their right to be paid. Obviously, in some instances, one could argue that the owner does not really care if lots of people buy with a discount, as long as it is direct through them and not a 3rd party to who t have to pay commission. T have maintained their âcommercial agreementâ (that of only posting the fully price so as not to upset re-sellers) so will, one might suppose, not pursue the forger. As I said, I might have mis-read the question, so please feel free to enlighten us all.
I'm actually looking forward to hearing other perspectives on this question. I will update this post if I am in the minority. What has always been a part of my mind is that the seller could simply be happy that the item is in circulation as they can expect to get back more money if they sell it to another buyer.