Quote:
Originally Posted by ApK
Don't misunderstand me, it's the road I object to, not the destination.
I believe people should start with the assumption that laws should be obeyed, agreements should be lived up to, and other people's rights and the rules of one's society should be respected.
Then after reflecting upon matters of ethics, justice, the improper actions of others and the unfair infringement of one's own rights, then it's easy to come to the ethical conclusion that DRM should be removed.
Don't just start with premise that "I can do anything I want because they won't find out" or "I can do anything I want because I paid money."
Those premises are wrong, and those premises are bad.
|
I don't fully agree. Some laws are overturned on appeal, and that comes only after someone who believes the law is wrong tests it. I'm not a lawyer, but the courts have held in the past that a person with a legal work has the right to make a copy for archival purposes, etc. Granted, these decisions come from the analog world, but I feel entirely justified in making sure I can access, and continue to access, an ebook that I have purchased.
To emphasize, I'm not "doing anything I want" -- I'm ensuring that I can read an ebook on an ereader. (I
want to be able make copies for friends, but I
don't.) There's no guarantee which way the courts will find if/when the law is tested, but I believe I'm justified under the previous legal decisions.