EU Piracy Report

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You've not really convinced me that stripping drm involves lying. I may be legally bound by the ToS, but I spoke, nor typed, nor presented any false information. I didn't lie to anyone. Clicking the button may have bound me legally, but that's an entirely different thing. Not that breaking a contract or disobeying a rule couldn't be considered immoral itself.

Whatever gets you through the night buddy. But that is some serious rationalization on your part. You do agree to the terms and conditions. Then you break them. You are lying, whatever you want to call it.

Those that set up ovearseas accounts aren't legally attesting the address as provided is their place of primary residence (unless there is something hidden in the terms and conditions I am missing). When you set up an account, the address you are listing is your shipping address. Well, if they order any packages, that address is where it will be shipped.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Personally speaking, my conscience is clear about both buying books from different countries and removing DRM for personal use. In both cases, the author has been paid for the sale, and nobody has lost anything. I have no moral qualms about either activity.

Same here. There is a legal doctrine which says that there must be injury for something to be actionable, or in basketball terms, no harm, no foul. If I buy a book in the UK that I can't buy in the US, then no one is harmed. That's true of either paper book or ebook. If I buy an ebook, then remove the DRM so I can back up my copy and read it on a different device, no one is harmed.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Same here. There is a legal doctrine which says that there must be injury for something to be actionable, or in basketball terms, no harm, no foul. If I buy a book in the UK that I can't buy in the US, then no one is harmed. That's true of either paper book or ebook. If I buy an ebook, then remove the DRM so I can back up my copy and read it on a different device, no one is harmed.

That's my thought on it too.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Whatever gets you through the night buddy. But that is some serious rationalization on your part.

Not at all. Just using things called definitions. The stretch is actually in calling the breaking of a rule a lie. They're simply not the same thing. It has nothing to do with rationalization (or sleeping well which has never been an issue). It has to do with using the correct term for things. Lying is lying, stealing is stealing, and breaking a rule is breaking a rule.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Not at all. Just using things called definitions. The stretch is actually in calling the breaking of a rule a lie. They're simply not the same thing. It has nothing to do with rationalization (or sleeping well which has never been an issue). It has to do with using the correct term for things. Lying is lying, stealing is stealing, and breaking a rule is breaking a rule.

By using the Kindle Store, purchasing or using any Kindle Content, using any Kindle Application, or using any aspect of the Service, you agree to be bound by the terms of this Agreement. If you do not accept the terms of this Agreement, then you may not use the Kindle Store, any Kindle Content, any Kindle Application or the Service.

Each time you purchase you are representing that you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions. Seems to me that this is very clearly a lie.

On giving an address in another country, there may well be a technicality where one is not lying. ff the address given, as is often the case, is an address where you are authorised to receive mail, perhaps a relatives address or that of a mail forwarding service, do you need to tell lies? So far as I can see, Amazon does not ask for a residential address. They cater for multiple addresses and a single default address. I'm not opening a new account so don't know if they actually require a residential address to do so when signing up. But it appears to me that many people who are not simply picking a random address or making one up may not be lying at all.

This is academic to me, as I have no moral difficulty in these circumstances with lying, be it about an address or about whether I agree to be bound by the terms and conditions when I have every intention of not being so bound.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Not at all. Just using things called definitions. The stretch is actually in calling the breaking of a rule a lie. They're simply not the same thing. It has nothing to do with rationalization (or sleeping well which has never been an issue). It has to do with using the correct term for things. Lying is lying, stealing is stealing, and breaking a rule is breaking a rule.

I understand. When you do it, you're breaking a rule. When someone else does it, it is a lie.

Incidentally, I created an account at Amazon UK and it didn't ask me for an address at all.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Not at all. Just using things called definitions. The stretch is actually in calling the breaking of a rule a lie. They're simply not the same thing. It has nothing to do with rationalization (or sleeping well which has never been an issue). It has to do with using the correct term for things. Lying is lying, stealing is stealing, and breaking a rule is breaking a rule.

In that case, you can use the same argument for geo-restrictions though, people use a VPN to ignore the part of the contract they don't agree with in the same way you strip the DRM, no actual lying is involved as they have never been specifically asked if they are using a VPN.

So bypassing geo-restrictions is just breaking a rule, not lying

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

So bypassing geo-restrictions is just breaking a rule, not lying

If they don't have to present a fake residential address, then I agree. Amazon requires more than a vpn though, no?

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by darryl

Each time you purchase you are representing that you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions. Seems to me that this is very clearly a lie.

With that definition, breaking any contract is a lie.

I agree with HarryT, as long as the author is paid, my conscience is clear.

There's simply one thing about geo-restrictions what I'll never understand: why is it there in the first place. I can understand that a publisher in territory A can't sell something in territory B if there is another publisher that has the right for that. But if that second publisher refuses to publish, I'm sorry, publisher A automatically has the right to sell in territory B. At least he takes to trouble to sell in the first place.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

With that definition, breaking any contract is a lie.

Not at all. The relevant time is not the time you break the contract. When you enter into the contract you represent to the other party that you agree to be bound by it. If you intend to break it when you make that representation you are lying at that point, irrespective of whether you later break the contract or not.

If you enter it honestly intending to abide by it then no lie is involved. If you then break it there is still no lie involved, just a simple breach.

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

I agree with HarryT, as long as the author is paid, my conscience is clear.

So do I.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

I agree with HarryT, as long as the author is paid, my conscience is clear.

I figure one of the points of copyright is that the author, who probably has a very small window, can exploit his works to the extent provided by law, which includes negotiating the best terms possible geographically. Not buying in the US for $10 but picking up a copy in India for a few cents is not exactly the stuff that makes for a clear conscience.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by issybird

I figure one of the points of copyright is that the author, who probably has a very small window, can exploit his works to the extent provided by law, which includes negotiating the best terms possible geographically. Not buying in the US for $10 but picking up a copy in India for a few cents is not exactly the stuff that makes for a clear conscience.

I was under the impression that we were talking about by passing geo-restrictions in order to buy something that is not available in your area.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I was under the impression that we were talking about by passing geo-restrictions in order to buy something that is not available in your area.

Both aspects have been raised and "economic gain" has been invoked. But I don't care; I'm willing to rephrase the comment with that restriction.

The stakeholders in the book, including the author, have the legal right to exploit copyright of digital books however they choose, even if it's withholding it from certain markets. Perhaps it's even with a view to maximizing revenue from the book at that; different markets may have calendar-related sweet spots, but the reason doesn't matter. At what point does this right, based on copyright, cease to exist? When someone wants to read it?

It's a slippery slope, indeed. Like DiapDealer and as I've said upthread, I'm not the internet morality police, but I don't like it when people present their chicanery as the moral option. There's the easy option: don't do it. Respect the legal rights of the author and other stakeholders and move on.

I find the parsing of the moral options quite odd, at times. "Traveling" to Canada or the US from a Life + 70 country to obtain for free the work of an author who's been dead for 69 years? "Oh, no, I couldn't do that!" "Traveling" to another country when it's trampling on the legal rights to his work of an living author who's trying to maximize his earnings now, whether you're saving money or just because you wanna? "Where's my credit card?" Does paying anything, even a few cents, make that moral? What about books that are free in one market and not another? And there's the conundrum where a book that's public domain in Canada, say, and it's for sale at Kobo, so someone "travels" there to buy it, when they could get it at Faded Page for free?

It's like the convolutions they had to go through to justify the sun traveling around the earth. There's an easier solution - if you're talking morality.

But, again, I'm not the morality police. But you're not convincing me, either.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by issybird

I figure one of the points of copyright is that the author, who probably has a very small window, can exploit his works to the extent provided by law, which includes negotiating the best terms possible geographically. Not buying in the US for $10 but picking up a copy in India for a few cents is not exactly the stuff that makes for a clear conscience.

One author actually said he doesn't sell his books in some countries because he doesn't make enough there to pay the exchange fees.

[rcentros]

I haven't bought any books "out of market" but I've bought a couple DVDs that weren't available in the U.S. (my DVD player can be set to be region free). "Man From Snowy River" (1 & 2) are a couple of my wife's favorite movies. For whatever reason, Walt Disney, who was the U.S. distributor for "Man From Snowy River II" (renamed "Return of the Man from Snow River" by Disney) will not release a wide screen version of the movie. So you've got "Man from Snowy River" in all it's widescreen glory ... and "Return" in Full Screen looking like a VHS the cat drug in from 1985. If you've watched these movies you know the scenery is one of the main features. Meanwhile, in Australia, the original maker of the movie, released a Collector's Set, which was widescreen, digitally cleaned up and which restored some scenes and the original ending of "Snowy River II" (I think the alterations were Disney's in "Return," not the film makers). So I bought the set from Australia. Whom did I harm? The original film maker got paid three times for the same movies (VHS, original DVD set and the new DVD set). Disney wasn't going to get my money for a third time anyhow, because they've changed nothing in the DVD over the years. If this is "morally wrong," – oh well, I'll just have to live with it.