What's the difference between a "workaround" for obtaining books that the publisher places geographical restrictions on, and "stealing"? Seems to me that the difference is that if I use a "workaround" I think I'm justified in my action, but if I "steal" I concede that I'm not justified - but I do it anyway.
A legal definition of stealing is, "the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to someone else with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit either temporarily or permanently". Now, given this definition it's hard to separate the two activities. Just what is being "stolen" if someone gets a copy of the book from darknet? Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating this, but the terms of the discussion - "stealing" bad - "workaround" good - seem to confuse the legal status of an act with some kind of personal moral response to an act. Obtaining goods by deception is no less illegal than stealing - though of course we may feel differently about the two sorts of act. I wonder to what extent, though, the way we feel about the two sorts of act is informed by our own interests.
Well, that's probably put the cat amongst the pigeons - as we say in England!
