|
People seem to want to play both ends against the middle in this argument. Is it about perceived "harm" or is it about breaking rules? You can't have it both ways.
Rationalizing being OK with breaking a ToS or removing DRM because it "does no harm" (in one's opinion), yet denying someone else the right to rationalize that their breaking of copyright "does no harm" (in their opinion) seems like the height of hypocrisy to me.
Making an unauthorized copy of an ebook violates copyright, that much is clear. It's not even up for debate. What's not clear is why some people believe so adamantly that their rationalization of "doing no harm"—through their intentional (but conscientious) breaking of the rules—is more righteous than someone else's rationalization of their intentional (but conscientious) breaking of the rules.
If you choose to behave that way, you're a pot calling the kettle black and looking foolish and self-righteous when doing so.
|