Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanas
Bad example. I can't afford Ferrari even though I am not restricted to buy it, and I wouldn't steal it. While I can afford e-book, but various restrictions won't allow to buy it.
If I could get my hands on Kindle I would obviously use it to the full potential, but unfortunately I can't get neither Kindle, nor e-books.
|
Ah, but it's not that you can't get a Kindle, it's that you are
not willing to spend the money to comply with Kindle restrictions. You could fly to the US, purchase your Kindle, PURCHASE and download 6-month's or a year's worth of books and fly home. But because this is expensive, you
CHOOSE to obtain the same content illegally. You make a decision to satisfy your entertainment desires by robbing authors of their royalties due. You are probably furious at your cell phone carrier for trying to restrict your access to unlimit minutes that you 'need', and your cable TV provider for restricting access to premium channels you haven't paid for. Poor thing, some of your entertainment desires go unfulfilled because you can't circumvent those restrictions as easily as you can the access to illicit ebooks. You poor deprived thing.
This thread has been very enlightening to me. I had no idea that folks adjusted their concept of what was right so rapidly to satisfy their entertainment needs. I've always been under the misconception that people adjusted their moral standards because of unfulfilled needs, but it appears it must be a very slippery slope if they also push the moral boundary to include fulfillment of casual desires.