[HansTWN]

[QUOTE=Elfwreck;531300]Yes, because both actions result in the authors not getting paid for the content they've created. Is there a moral difference between those actions, rather than a legal or technological difference?

The moral difference is that this is commonly accepted (including by the authors and publishers under the fair use doctrine). Even under DRM schemes you can make 4-6 copies. It is moral because the copyright holder expressly allows you to do it.



I don't believe that's been suggested. Yes, Jaime suggested in an earlier post that the simple fact that an author has the audacity to demand any payment is "barbaric"



It's also been pointed out that, just because a free version is available, doesn't mean people won't pay. I am all for versions with no DRM. But I think what we need is the general acceptance that not paying is wrong (beyond the limits of fair use, similar to pbooks). And the idea that everything "should" be free because it is digital is taking hold among many, that is the problem. I do believe that publishers and authors should take a long look at pricing. Low distribution costs and a wide audience, should allow for much lower pricing. And I hope that it will go this way, generally low prices for ebooks that people are willing to pay rather than download for free.