The law and morality are of course often if not mostly two different things. And of course the morality that is relevant here is people's individual moral codes. On top of this is the fact that we are all only human, and so we sometimes break even our own moral codes. More often than not, we tend to rationalise such breaches though there is a refreshing trend in this thread for some to say I don't care, I'm doing it even though I think it's morally wrong. Though none of us are totally immune to rationalisation.
I think the attempt to distinguish between circumventing geo-blocking and drm removal on the basis that only one involved an actual lie has failed, at least so far as Amazon's terms are concerned. Ironically enough, it seems that Amazon does not ask for an actual residential address. If this is in fact the case, there need be no lying involved to get around geo-blocking, save perhaps arguably giving a totally false address with which you have no connection. On the other hand, removing drm will always involve a lie unless you actually do not intend such removal when you purchase the ebook. In my view this simply shows that whether a lie is involved is not especially helpful in determining the morality of either practice. Of course, if not lying is in your personal moral code an absolute, then you must either avoid either practice if a lie is involved, or simply ignore your moral code and go ahead, hopefully without attempting to rationalise. Ironically, for those who don't choose to lie, this will prohibit them from removing drm but usually not from circumventing geo-blocking.
Other moral distinctions have been put forward. Whether the author gets paid seems to me to make far more sense than whether or not a lie is involved. However, it does have the arguable complications of ignoring the quantum of the authors payment and ignoring the rights of other "stakeholders in the book", including of course any exclusive agent for another territory. To me none of these are of terrible concern morally, but others of course feel differently. Likewise the distinction between whether a book is available in a particular territory at all or for a different price.
Morally, there is an elephant in the room that is little discussed. The concept often expressed as "two wrongs don't make a right" does have implications to personal morality. Some people do not totally accept this, choosing to look at the morality of particular actions on a more holistic basis. A weighing up exercise with individual moral rights or wrongs weighing towards the morality of a particular act.
Finally, I will quote from one of issybird's prior posts in this thread:
Quote:
|
The stakeholders in the book, including the author, have the legal right to exploit copyright of digital books however they choose, even if it's withholding it from certain markets. Perhaps it's even with a view to maximizing revenue from the book at that; different markets may have calendar-related sweet spots, but the reason doesn't matter. At what point does this right, based on copyright, cease to exist? When someone wants to read it?
|
Arguably one or more of these stakeholders may have the legal right to do so. But the moral right? Copyright, in the United States at least, exists only for the public benefit, making more books available, at first under a statutory monopoly for a limited time and then as part of the public domain. Private rights granted are ancillary to this, and should be interpreted accordingly, at least morally. Morally I do not believe that any "stakeholders" from the author on down have a right to withhold a book once they have taken advantage of copyright. Is it not hypocritical and itself immoral to withhold a book whilst relying on legislation which is fundamentally aimed at making more books available? That allows a short term public detriment, a monopoly, in return for a longer term public benefit?
The view that copyright holders can do anything they like stems from the view that a copyright is the same as physical property. Morally, at least in my view, copyrights are subject to the overriding purpose for which they are granted. When this is essentially making more books available I find it hard to construe as moral the withholding of such books.