|
Interesting discussion... I'm certain that if Amazon had NOT removed the illegally uploaded books from those Kindles (And I'm not arguing the irritation factor or sense of violation the Kindle owners felt over having their books deleted... Keep in mind the refunds they got though) they would have risked a lawsuit from the Authors and publishers holding the actual copyright and distribution rights. And would have lost big time.
Tompe I was intrigued by your statement about Universal Morality. Whether moraity is an objective law like a foundation in the Universe or if morality is something you can define for yourself and your definition is just as valid as someone else even though you disagree and in many cases are on opposite sides of an issue.
You wrote, (in response to HarryT's statement, "might I respectfully suggest that it you feel the need to persecute someone, it should be the person who illegally uploaded the material to Amazon. They are the ones who did wrong, not Amazon. In removing the illegal material and refunded the purchasers' money Amazon have done precisely the right thing. Forget the law - it was the right thing to do.)
You wrote:
"Just claiming your morality as universal does make it so. My moral reasoning give me the conclusion it was the wrong thing to do."
Then a few posts later you wrote
"According to what law?
Not according to first sale principle.
In many countries if you buy something stolen in good faith it is yours to keep."
I have a question on a personal level (this issue goes directly to the question of whether you can steal money or property from someone and if it is immoral or moral to steal.)
Let's say someone swiped your Ereader or computer you spent hundreds or thousands on, then you spotted your property in the local Coffee shop being used by someone. So you confront that person and they say, "I bought this from a guy on the street! I got a great deal and it's mine becasue I bought it!" So you show him your name on the back and so on, proving it's yours. You go to the police and they say, "Yes that Ereader was once yours and was stolen from you but now since this other fellow "bought it" it's his and you are out of luck! Take a hike!"
I feel certain that you too would FEEL that the morally correct, the RIGHT thing to do would be for the police to forcibly remove your property from the poor sap that "bought it" from the thief and then if possible catch the thief and force the thief to pay back the poor sap that "bought" your property.
On the other hand I feel certain that the thief, (And possibly the Sap who "Bought" your stolen property) Would FEEL that the morally right thing to do would be to let the thief keep the money he got from the sale of your stolen goods and let the poor Sap keep your property.
Question. Who would be morally right? By your answer it would apear that you think BOTH could be morally right.
How can you not see that this is Amazons dilemna on this one? So to avoid the inevitable lawsuit forthcoming from the publishers of Atlas Shrugged they removed the stolen property AND restored the money to the Saps that unknowingly and innocently bought the stolen items.
I think Amazon did the right thing on this one.
(I'm not attacking or trying to stir up trouble, just talking)
|