Quote:
Originally Posted by meromana
Well, this is an interesting way to look at moral questions, but my perspective was really a blending of the two. The copyright law was intended to protect the financial interests of the copyright holder (author, publisher), and my thinking in saying it is wrong to take books from the darknet, was that the copyright holder might at some point in the future choose to exercise his right by re-releasing the title. Thus, taking the book from the darknet would be stealing from him. I understand that the vast majority who use the darknet would never actually buy the book from the publisher, so it's not an issue practically speaking, but morally, yes, it's still wrong from both the perspective of a "breaking the rules" outlook or a "harm to others" outlook.
--Maria
|
It is *okay*, morally, for the publisher to deprive the customers of the ebook title - potentially for years - but it's *not* okay for the customers to find another source??? Right.
NOT!
If the title is withheld for no practical reason, then the copyright holder has only him/herself to blame for lost sales. "I can't be bothered" isn't a valid moral excuse for taking a book off the market and waiting to re-release.
Now if the copyright holder doesn't have clean copy and must take the time to re-input, copycheck and e-format from dead-tree, that is a valid reason for delays. And having to wait for a while to buy is expected on backlist titles. But when a publisher takes more than a year? Especially when it's the case of one title missing in the middle of a series that has been released? Nope. There's NOTHING immoral in finding an alternative source.
Derek