EU Piracy Report

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Diverting it to an argument about the morality of 'travelling' just seems to be muddying the waters for no point.

I didn't divert it. I merely took issue with people who were already suggesting there were no moral components to it, and/or defending the practice as OK because "not piracy." I wasn't even the first (or the second) person to mention morality with regard to thwarting geo-restrictions.

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

It is no more defensible than stripping DRM.

I agree. Hence why I make no effort to "defend" my decision to remove DRM. And why I don't hassle anyone who doesn't try to defend it as if it were some sort of "right."

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Calling out one person for breaking terms of service while we do so in a different way feels a lot like we've all been spinning our wheels.

I'm not calling anyone out for breaking terms of service. That's where the disconnect is. I'm calling out anyone who claims to be justified (or acting morally) when breaking terms of service; and anyone who believes they are somehow entitled to buy any ebook they desire; and anyone who suggests that traveling or piracy are the only two choices when confronted with an ebook someone won't sell them because of where they reside.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

As someone who knits for a hobby, I used to hear that one a lot. Or even that I should be grateful for any amount of cash thrown my way because all I was doing was sitting around. People have no concept of how long it takes to knit a pair of socks only to be offered $5 for the pair.

I am sure in their job they'd be insulted to get paid $5 for 50-60 hours of work, not counting materials.

Entitlement turns people into freaks who just don't think.

And they wanted the socks in merino wool too.
Let's see a pair of knit socks would take roughly 1/25th the time it took to do a fashion doll dream camper. Unfortunately, when I priced it for the person I estimated it would take sock time. $500 didn't seem like much when I finished the @/%& thing many months later.

So yes one week sounds quick to a needlepointer. I do appreciate the time though.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by shalym

...anymore than you *have* to remove DRM, and you can't justify DRM removal as a moral action either. That's all I'm trying to say. If you remove DRM from your purchases, you are just as immoral as those who circumvent geo-restrictions.

I'm neither justifying DRM removal nor comparing relative moralities.

Note again, I am not equating either of these things to piracy...because they're not.

Who is?

This all reminds me of the old joke:

"Would you sleep with me for $10,000?"
"Yes."
"Would you sleep with me for $10?"
"Of course not. What do you think I am?"
"We've established that; now we're just negotiating price."

You can talk about absolutes or you can talk about comparitives, but not at the same time.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

As someone who knits for a hobby, I used to hear that one a lot. Or even that I should be grateful for any amount of cash thrown my way because all I was doing was sitting around. People have no concept of how long it takes to knit a pair of socks only to be offered $5 for the pair.

I am sure in their job they'd be insulted to get paid $5 for 50-60 hours of work, not counting materials.

Entitlement turns people into freaks who just don't think.

You have that right.

I always have people coming into my store and wanting me to tell them how much a ring, that they bought at another store is worth. And they expect it to be free. I charge to do appraisals and whether it is written down or verbal I still have to do the same amount of research to price their jewelry.
Or when I quote a price for a repair the customer tells me "but all you have to do is .........". I have 37 years of experience, I am using a laser that cost me $30,000.00 plus maintenance, Utilities, rent and payroll so I should not worry about doing it for free.
Apache

[Apache]

Originally Posted by issybird

This all reminds me of the old joke:

"Would you sleep with me for $10,000?"
"Yes."
"Would you sleep with me for $10?"
"Of course not. What do you think I am?"
"We've established that; now we're just negotiating price."

You can talk about absolutes or you can talk about comparitives, but not at the same time.

I seem to remember George Burns telling that joke.
Apache

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I didn't divert it. I merely took issue with people who were already suggesting there were no moral components to it, and/or defending the practice as OK because "not piracy." I wasn't even the first (or the second) person to mention morality with regard to thwarting geo-restrictions.

I'll still defend it as okay, because "not piracy." Maybe it's just the way that you are stating your argument, but you seem to be claiming that both 'travelling' and piracy are equally immoral. They aren't. Again, shades of gray.

After this, I will let it go.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I'll still defend it as okay, because "not piracy." Maybe it's just the way that you are stating your argument, but you seem to be claiming that both 'travelling' and piracy are equally immoral. They aren't. Again, shades of gray.

After this, I will let it go.

Exactly. While nobody explicitly said that thwarting geo-restrictions is piracy, the implication from a few posters was that the two were both morally equivalent.

Shari

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Apache

I seem to remember George Burns telling that joke.
Apache

LOL, I've heard it ascribed to George Bernard Shaw, among others. With varying amounts, reflecting time and geography!

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Apache

I seem to remember George Burns telling that joke.
Apache

I heard it was Robert Redford in a movie.

[ekbell]

I think that it is reasonable to for someone to believe that there is a moral difference between deliberately fooling a book seller as to your location and breaking a set of Terms & Conditions that you have not explicitly agreed to (and may never have read). The first is lying and the second is simply disobedience (unless you've clicked an 'I agree with these terms and conditions' box).

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I'll still defend it as okay, because "not piracy." Maybe it's just the way that you are stating your argument, but you seem to be claiming that both 'travelling' and piracy are equally immoral. They aren't. Again, shades of gray.

After this, I will let it go.

Originally Posted by shalym

Exactly. While nobody explicitly said that thwarting geo-restrictions is piracy, the implication from a few posters was that the two were both morally equivalent.

Shari

I'll let it go with an honest question (honest, because I don't know the answer; from a personal standpoint, or from a formal ethical/moral standpoint).

Forget ebooks. Who is standing on "firmer" moral ground: the person who lies to obtain something they're not entitled to have, or the person who steals to obtain the very same something they're not entitled to have?

[shalym]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'll let it go with an honest question (honest, because I don't know the answer; from a personal standpoint, or from a formal ethical/moral standpoint).

Forget ebooks. Who is standing on "firmer" moral ground: the person who lies to obtain something they're not entitled to have, or the person who steals to obtain the very same something they're not entitled to have?

If the person who lied also paid for the item, then the person who lied is definitely on firmer moral ground than the one who outright stole it.

Here's a scenario for you...a person lies about their age in order to rent a car (uses a fake ID). He/she pays all of the fees associated with renting the car. Another person steals a car. Who is on firmer moral ground?

Shari

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'll let it go with an honest question (honest, because I don't know the answer; from a personal standpoint, or from a formal ethical/moral standpoint).

Forget ebooks. Who is standing on "firmer" moral ground: the person who lies to obtain something they're not entitled to have, or the person who steals to obtain the very same something they're not entitled to have?

I'll answer with another question: If you were talking to a publisher or author at a Q&A, would you be more comfortable telling them 'if your book is unavailable, I buy a copy from overseas' or 'if your book is unavailable, I pirate a copy'?

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by ekbell

I think that it is reasonable to for someone to believe that there is a moral difference between deliberately fooling a book seller as to your location and breaking a set of Terms & Conditions that you have not explicitly agreed to (and may never have read). The first is lying and the second is simply disobedience (unless you've clicked an 'I agree with these terms and conditions' box).

As Judge Dredd says 'ignorance of the law is no excuse!'

I'm pretty sure that in order to purchase an e-book from anywhere, you have to create an account, part of which requires an agreement to their terms and conditions.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I'll answer with another question:

Because that's always productive.

But for the record, if by "If unavailable, I buy a copy from overseas" you mean "If unavailable, I lie to thwart your publisher's geo-restrictions", I would be equally uncomfortable admitting to being a liar or a thief.