Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmon
This is an instance where the legal outcome and the ethical outcome are the same, because the law defers to the ethics of the situation. In both situations, the basic question is whether a person who has violated an ethical duty ("don't make copies") can assert an ethical claim ("you owe me for the work I did making the copies") against the person he has wronged. The answer is framed in terms of the copier not having "clean hands." Since the copier does not have clean hands, he cannot impose an ethical obligation on the author whose rights he has violated.
|
Eh? According to which moral system? I am pretty familiar with a lot of different moral systems and "clean hands" is not a concept that is there as a basic principle. And it does not seem obvious that it follows in different consequence ethics either.
And here he might have wronged a person. But taking buying the book and producing a proofed electronic copy is not doing anything wrong. So producing the copy was not wrong. So I do not see how taking this copy and selling it against the wishes of the person that have totally legally and lorally produced the copy can be right. Making the copy available to other people seems to me not related to the work of producing the copy. So a different wrong does not make taking the copy right.