|
Whether doing what we want to do is legal or not is, while not trivial, is not grounds for what stonetools claims we're trying to do -- destroy the book industry. We can do want we want to do, whether or not it's legal to do so. If that was really all that mattered, most people would just quietly keep on keepin' on. I don't see anyone who would deliberately harm their own best interests (putting an end to the supply of ebooks, or books overall) in exchange for the ability to use books as they should be used. It's too high a price.
But stonetools is saying that there are only two choices -- accept crushing limitations on one's ability to use an ebook, or face the destruction of the book industry. Pick one or the other. You're with him or against him. I'm trying to point out that we, the readers, are not accepting that false dichotomy, and that we want both usable books and a supply of future books -- and that, as rational decision-makers, we would not choose an option that would cut off our noses (and our books) to spite our faces.
|