Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
t 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.
|
Your "rational perspective" is rational only within the context of a market based analysis. Kovid's argument is that there are ethical obligations which transcend economic (or legal) analysis. You do not address that argument; you merely return to your economic analysis.
Assume that you are selling the ebook to your friend. Would you sell it without letting him know that it's a public domain ebook that he can get for free? I would hope not. So is your position that your ethical obligation to your friend is different than your ethical obligation to a stranger?