|
I think the core fact - it's wrong - is still spot on.
You are acquring a distinct item that you have not purchased, and the owner of the item has not received payment for said item.
Now yes, there's the whole thing about 'I had licences' and 'what do you mean the thing I purchased 10 years ago I don't actually *own*' but that's an argument that hasn't been placed in law, so there's been no try out.
So pirating and illegal may very well be emotive terms. They *might* even be correct. But really, nothing about how it's argued out really matters.
The companies say it's wrong. The owners of said work say it's wrong. You can listen to them, and be a 'good' person. Or you can ignore them, get stuff questionably and you're a 'bad person'. Whether or not you get caught \ fined \ jailed or not is immaterial - it's just not the *right* thing to do!
(Personally, I think there should be some way to prove ownership of, say, the physical book, and then get a discounted e-version. However, there is no way this could be policed - you could copy a barcode from a shop to get round it, or borrow a friend's receipt - I know I haven't kept my last 10 physical book receipts!)
Amazon's Kindle is in a much better position to stop piracy due to the cost of the books, and the convenience of getting them - it's up to people who own them to decide if they're going to be 'good' or 'bad'.
|