Quote:
Originally Posted by BenBanned
More ethics and less monetary, I refuse to pay for something I can't physicaly hold. Why would I pay the same price for something that has almost no value?
To me a book is worth money because it is on paper. My shelves hold books that mean something to me, I glance at the spines and am flooded with memories, many will be passed on to my children. When I finish reading an ebook it simply no longer exists to me.
Can I not look at art without purchasing it?
|
You're seriously arguing that this is an "ethical" stance you're taking? The complete disregard for intellectual property? What difference does the matter make? The matter is secondary. If you think it is morally wrong to steal fruit, but not an artistic rendering of a fruit in a digital file, your reasoning is totally backward. Farmers do not create dirt, they do not creat seeds, they do not create fruit, etc. They work the material. It is the sweat of their brow that makes that material "theirs" to sell to you. This is the very basis of property rights. Locke argued that you and the material become inextricably intertwined with your working of it. The material is God's, or at least communal. It is the imposition of the worker onto the material that gives it value. Therefore there is NO material difference in value between the worth of a work in one medium or another per se.