Oddly enough, the same point was made over 165 years ago -- in a speech by Thomas Babington Macauley in the House of Commons, 5th February, 1841:
At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men.
[...]
Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly [...] and the whole nation will be in the plot.
[...]
Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redcard
My choice is choice B. Buy the books with DRM and then remove them.
While I do not advocate theft by any stretch, we in the US are nearing a point in time where there is no legalistic difference between buying books and removing the DRM (a criminal act) and downloading them off of a torrent (a criminal act.) Those two acts are both covered as "infringements" under the DMCA.
My concern is that one day, people might see no ethical difference between the two.
|