Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirtel
I suspect in most cases it's both, and it's hard to say where the dividing line exactly is. Also when one explains one's reasons, it almost inevitably comes off as justification (is there even a real difference between the two?), and there's very little one can do about it, except not explaining anything at all. And in that case there'll be indeed very little discussion.  |
Not explaining themselves does seem to be some posters default approach and then being huffy when asked to explain themselves.
I think that morality with regards to violating copyright law really does depend a lot on
1) if one is a letter of the law verses spirit of the law type
2) How one views copyright, i.e. the author's personal property or a government granted limited monopoly
3) if one even accepts the validity of copyright.
4) what one views as the purpose of copyright, if one even cares about the purpose (see rules are rules post above)
I tend to view copyright as purely a method of making sure that authors get paid and thus are encouraged to write more books (i.e. "To Promote the progress of science and useful arts..."). Thus my moral approach to copyright violation is predicated on that. As long as the author gets paid, I don't care about violating geo restrictions. As long as the author gets paid, I don't care about removing DRM or making backup copies for archival purposes (both of which may or may not be allowed under the US fair use doctrine). I think that orphaned works should be made available in some way, shape or fashion. For that matter, I think that all copyright books should be available to the buying public at a reasonable price (a technical term). If they aren't available, then the copyright of that work isn't promoting the progress of useful arts, in my opinion. Others may disagree, but that's how I approach the morality of copyright and ebooks.