EU Piracy Report

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The thing nobody is thinking of is that even if we bypass the geo-restrictions to buy the eBook, the author is still getting paid. That's better than going online to try to find the eBook for free.

I've never argued the "author still gets paid angle," only the morality of purposeful lying for personal gain. People are free to decide for themselves whether or not they're OK with lying to get an ebook they want (or what lies they personally consider harmless); their conscience is their own. But there's no arguing that lying for personal, gain carries inherent moral implications.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I've never argued the "author still gets paid angle," only the morality of purposeful lying for personal gain. People are free to decide for themselves whether or not they're OK with lying to get an ebook they want (or what lies they personally consider harmless); their conscience is their own. But there's no arguing that lying for personal, gain carries inherent moral implications.

What also bothers me is the false either/or. The only alternative to geo-restrictions isn't piracy; it's buying a paper book or, horror, foregoing it altogether and reading something else. No one is entitled to an ebook of a particular title.

[JSWolf]

I'd rather someone paid for it regardless of geo-restrictions then went on the net to try to find it for free. It's not our fault the publisher in our country who has the rights did not make an eBook edition.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I'd rather someone paid for it regardless of geo-restrictions then went on the net to try to find it for free. It's not our fault the publisher in our country who has the rights did not make an eBook edition.

There is no fault involved! No one is entitled to a particular ebook just because he wants it. You make it sound as if you think it's the publisher's "fault" for not providing an ebook and that eliminates any blame for a dodgy purchaser.

Read the paper book. Or do without.

[DiapDealer]

I must admit I've never quite understood the, "They don't want to sell it to me, therefore my deceptive workaround to buy it is entirely justified" mindset, myself. If you're comfortable with the deception, then great. Have at it. Just own the fact that your actions can't truly be justified. Nobody's entitled to buy everything thing they want.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I must admit I've never quite understood the, "They don't want to sell it to me, therefore my deceptive workaround to buy it is entirely justified" mindset, myself. If you"re comfortable with the deception, then great. Have at it. Just own the fact that your actions can't truly be justified. Nobody's entitled to buy everything thing they want.

Lets say you are reading a series. The current eBook ends on a cliffhanger. For whatever reason, the next eBook does not come out in your country yet it comes out elsewhere. Lets also say that the paperback that's released in your country is too small for you to read. What would you do? The "buy in paper" is not going to work.

[JSWolf]

Another issue. Take the Mary Stewart Arthurian books. You can buy illegal eBooks from Smashwords legally or you can buy legal eBooks illegally from the UK. So what would you do?

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Lets say you are reading a series. The current eBook ends on a cliffhanger. For whatever reason, the next eBook does not come out in your country yet it comes out elsewhere. Lets also say that the paperback that's released in your country is too small for you to read. What would you do? The "buy in paper" is not going to work.

Use a magnifiying glass

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Lets say you are reading a series. The current eBook ends on a cliffhanger. For whatever reason, the next eBook does not come out in your country yet it comes out elsewhere. Lets also say that the paperback that's released in your country is too small for you to read. What would you do? The "buy in paper" is not going to work.

Still only a want. So still no entitlement. I wait until the ebook, or a large-print pbook, or audiobook becomes available.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Another issue. Take the Mary Stewart Arthurian books. You can buy illegal eBooks from Smashwords legally or you can buy legal eBooks illegally from the UK. So what would you do?

Neither. I would find paper copies, or I would read something else.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Lets say you are reading a series. The current eBook ends on a cliffhanger. For whatever reason, the next eBook does not come out in your country yet it comes out elsewhere. Lets also say that the paperback that's released in your country is too small for you to read. What would you do? The "buy in paper" is not going to work.

Take a magnifying glass to the book store and just read the ending.
Will it hurt me financially or academically to not know the final outcome?
If no, then I would just find another book to read and hope someday the ebook may become available to me.
I also would not start any more series by that particular author.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Still only a want. So still no entitlement. I wait until the ebook, or a large-print pbook, or audiobook becomes available.

But “wants” and “entitlements” boil down to questions of personal opinion, don’t they? Eg the DRM removal tools’ development was presumably prompted by a view that the purchaser of an ebook has a legitimate entitlement to be able to read it on any device of their choosing. Other people might disagree with that point of view. At the end of the day it’s a matter of opinion, not a moral absolute.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But “wants” and “entitlements” boil down to questions of personal opinion, don’t they? Eg the DRM removal tools’ development was presumably prompted by a view that the purchaser of an ebook has a legitimate entitlement to be able to read it on any device of their choosing. Other people might disagree with that point of view. At the end of the day it’s a matter of opinion, not a moral absolute.

Once again: don't be confused as to what I find immoral about geo-restriction circumvention. It is the lying component of "traveling" that I find immoral. Not the thwarting of geo-restriction itself. And I find the attempt to justify the practice to be unconvincing and pointless. For that matter, I hold no notion that I am entitled to remove DRM, nor have I attempted to convince myself that I am justified in doing so.

Lying for personal gain is one of the few things I can think that is not morally ambiguous. So yes, I think knowingly doing so is unequivocally immoral. Opinion doesn't enter into it.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Once again: don't be confused as to what I find immoral about geo-restriction circumvention. It is the lying component of "traveling" that I find immoral. Not the thwarting of geo-restriction itself. And I find the attempt to justify the practice to be unconvincing and pointless. For that matter, I hold no notion that I am entitled to remove DRM, nor have I attempted to convince myself that I am justified in doing so.

Lying for personal gain is one of the few things I can think that is not morally ambiguous. So yes, I think knowingly doing so is unequivocally immoral. Opinion doesn't enter into it.

Just like copyright extension? Lying about the term of the copyright, previously agreed upon, for personal gain?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Just like copyright extension? Lying about the term of the copyright, previously agreed upon, for personal gain?

If you want to consider changing terms and extending formerly agreed upon term lengths to be lying, then that is certainly your right. I personally think that's a bit of a stretch, myself. There's a clear difference, in my opinion, between lobbying for changed terms and telling someone you live in a country that you don't. But that's neither here nor there with regard to this topic. Even if you believe extending copyright was a lie for personal gain, it still wouldn't be justification for violating copyright. Nor would it lend any credence to the notion that lying to thwart geo-restrictions is somehow justified.