View Single Post
Old 02-24-2015, 12:19 PM   #103
DiapDealer
Grand Sorcerer
DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
DiapDealer's Avatar
 
Posts: 28,620
Karma: 204624552
Join Date: Jan 2010
Device: Nexus 7, Kindle Fire HD
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT View Post
I would make a clear distinction between removing DRM to allow me to read a book on a different device, and removing DRM to allow me to give a copy of a book to someone else. In my personal ethical system, the latter is dishonest; the former is not. Your ethical standards may of course differ, and that's entirely your concern. I certainly don't consider it hypocritical to say that copyright infringement (giving someone a copy of something, or lending someone the original while retaining a copy yourself) is dishonest. To my way of thinking, it IS dishonest.
We have very different viewpoints on dishonesty then. I tend to believe that if I feel I can break the law "responsibly" (based solely on my own personal ethics), I have an obligation to assume others are capable of the very same thing.

DRM removal and copyright infringement both have equal potential for harm or harmlessness to rights-holders.

Last edited by DiapDealer; 02-24-2015 at 12:22 PM.
DiapDealer is online now   Reply With Quote