|
Even if pirates are the ones that hold the most to sideloading, would that constitue an argument against sideloading?
I don't get the point of this poll after OP explained why he did it.
At some point, OP explained there's different definitions of sideloading one could use.
Is it loading through USB stick? That's a poor definition because everything I can do through USB I could do through wifi if my device software gives me control over the wifi.
Whatever definition it is, it is not pirating because it's two different things even if pirating need some form of control over your device (and your files). It's just the ability to get books from any source, including pirate ones. It's the ability to decide for yourself what your sources are. If you delegate this right (choosing source), and if the Kindle doesn't allow you to load books from other publishers, it doesn't allow you to sideload, and it would suck.
What would a honest consumer gain by not having the possibility to sideload?
How to you even deprive dishonest consumers from their ability to sideload? Remember that only one open device brand (or easily bricked) is sufficient for dishonest people to be able to load pirated content.
What is there to gain for honest consumer by limiting their device while that is unlikely to affect dishonest consumers anyway?
|