Originally Posted by Giggleton
By natural I mean it just feels right. Does restricting someone's choice of reading material feel right to you??
I can see an instance where allowing someone to read what they want instantly for free (author's rights aside) could be harmful.
Someone wants to read the latest James Patterson perhaps. One assumes they have read all the other James Patterson books either second hand or through the library and will not read anything but James Patterson to make this an urgent need and do not have any cash. Is it good for them to restrict their reading this way and if they do get and read the book, what then? A great wailing and gnashing of teeth until the next book is released? What will they do.
Reading choices have always been restricted to what is available and/or affordable. Most fiction books (not all) are available to anyone in most democratic countries for little or no cost. Maybe they have to read the paper book, but not many have died from that. Millions of people have read paper books for years without any significant loss of freedom or brain damage, maybe a few cases of eyestrain from over-reading, but probably no worse than over-reading ebooks.
The truly destitute, those who cannot read even if literate, as they are too cold and hungry to concentrate on anything else are much more deserving of your attention than those who have devices capable of reading ebooks. Maybe they and yourself are very poor by your standards, but if they can worry about reading exactly what they want, they aren't by mine.