Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
To equate eBook piracy to posting bad reviews seems a little ridiculous to me. I suspect that, if you're honest with yourself, you do actually understand the ethical difference between taking a copy of an author's book without paying for it, and posting a bad review of that book.
|
Absolutely. I'm pointing out that if the measure of ethics is "how much damage does this act do to the author," there are more damaging things than downloading & reading without paying, and many of those are legal.
Sorting out why an act is considered immoral, and why some people think it's not, is a big part of figuring out how to enforce the law.
Is it immoral because "it costs the author money?" --In which case, why aren't other actions that cost more money, immoral?
Is it immoral because "it makes a copy?" --In which case, what's the core issue, because most of us don't think of "copying" as an innately immoral act. Unauthorized copying of some works is illegal; others are not (clothing, furniture, office supplies).
These are semi-rhetorical questions; they've been discussed almost to death. The point is, most of us are aware that "illegal" and "wrong" are not automatically synonymous, that the law often lags behind technology and either forbids things after many people think they should be legal (drm cracking for archival purposes), or allows things that many people believe should be illegal (cyber-bullying). Sorting out the actual *wrong* involved begins with sorting out the harm done and the amount of effort that should go into preventing that harm.