Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmon
Tell it all those professors who teach courses on business ethics.
|
The relevant discipline is actually "behavioral economics." (And yes, they do teach business ethics.)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Harmon
Just because something has an emotional dimension does not mean that it is irrational, which seems to be what you are implying.
|
Trust me, people do NOT react rationally to prices.
Or better yet, don't trust me.
Read Ariely's book, he has run numerous experiments that demonstrate the point. (And yes, it's available as an ebook.)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Harmon
There's no doubt that people react irrationally to "free." That does not mean, of course, that all reactions to "free" are irrational, assuming that is what you are implying.
|
Once you look into it, you'll see that it is not rational. That doesn't mean that it is
wrong or
counter-productive, but it's definitely not rational.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Harmon
Certainly the legal realm and the ethical realm overlap....
|
I'm not referring to the legal issues in those examples. Regardless of any laws, DeBeers arguably acted immorally when they manipulated diamond prices.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Harmon
You apparently do not believe that there is an ethical dimension to economic activity, other than to obey the laws, legal & economic. So you reject the premise of the discussion.
|
On the contrary, I definitely believe there are ethical aspects to economic activity.
However, to me a public domain book is
libris, and there is no reason why that requires that public domain books must also be
gratis.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Harmon
All ethical behavior is virtuous, isn't it?
|
"Virtue" is a positive moral behavior. Actions can also be morally negative ("immoral") or neutral, which is where I would place "selling public domain works." It's best to stick to the existing terms/jargon.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Harmon
It is [unethical] to fail to reveal to the buyer that what appears to be offered for sale is in the Public Domain.
|
I disagree (obviously), and am not seeing any persuasive arguments to the contrary.
It is not a requirement of any seller to either tell you their costs; or to base the price off of costs; or to inform you of cheaper alternatives.
Yet again: If I'm at Tourneau Corner and I spend $100 more on a watch than I would have somewhere else, was that an ethical failing on the store's part? Heck, they're taking me for a $100 ride. Isn't that ten times worse than dropping $10 for a book I could get elsewhere for free?
And if you still think the watch pricing is ethical while the PD book is unethical, then yes, you're reacting irrationally to "the power of free." Because from a rational perspective, paying $100 extra is
definitely ten times worse than paying $10 extra.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Harmon
What we don't agree on is whether the seller has an [ethical] obligation to disclose that the material is PD.
|
Yes, I had noticed that was one source of dispute.
And no, they don't. Their only moral obligation is to not to re-impose copyright restrictions on a "liberated" work.
And what exactly would qualify as "proper" notification? A click-through agreement? One sentence buried in the midst of other publication data at the end of the book? A big screaming ad banner in the middle of the sales page?