View Single Post
Old 02-26-2015, 09:22 AM   #133
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: 28,701
Karma: 205039118
Join Date: Jan 2010
Device: Nexus 7, Kindle Fire HD
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT View Post
I was responding to Robert's post about "sharing" books, not lending CDs. That was a separate discussion.
Still doesn't explain why you believe harmlessly breaking one law/rule is any more or less "honest" than harmlessly breaking another. Unless you believe an unauthorized copy of an ebook with the DRM removed is not infringing on a right-holders right to control copying.

If you're going to stick to the letter of the law to determine "dishonesty" in one case, you need to to do the same in the other. Conversely; if you feel you're qualified to determine "no harm" in your civil own disobediance, you must acknowledge the possibility that others are just as qualified as you to determine the "harm"--or lack thereof--in theirs.

You don't get to grant yourself a "no harm" loophole to one law while expecting others to stick to the letter of another law in order to remain "honest." It's as simple as that.

Last edited by DiapDealer; 02-26-2015 at 09:27 AM.
DiapDealer is offline   Reply With Quote