Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeB1972
|
I don't know that it's churlish to point out the use of a rhetorical device, no matter how long it's been in use. 350 years ago, copyright was something that came from the crown and had nothing to do with who wrote the book. Someone had the copyright, i.e. a government granted monopoly for printing, of the bible. Few books were actually covered under a copyright, thus it was quite legal to for multiple printers to print copies. Calling someone else a pirate for printing the book was a bit like calling someone a Nazi now, i.e. it was purely a rhetorical device designed to engage the emotions of the listener.
Right now, we are discussing ethics more than legality. The legality of removing DRM from an ebook in the US is uncertain. There is a conflict between the fair use doctrine of being about to make back up copies of your ebooks, and being able to format shift, and laws that make it illegal to bypass DRM. However, I think that a majority would agree that making a backup copy and format shifting an ebook that you paid for is ethical.
In the original case, i.e. downloading a free ebook via the wayback machine, when it's no longer being offered as free, I've already given my opinion of when it's ethical and when it isn't (ethical if it's not available otherwise, not ethical is you are simply trying to avoid paying for it). Ethics is one of those areas where there are lots of different opinions, and it's not always straight forward. Lots of room for reasonable disagreement.