"Pirating ebooks is an offence against moral justice" says... GoodEreader!?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

It's not a "someone got my money" defense. It's an "I would like to buy these books but cannot" defense.

No. It's not. It's an "I'm going to break the rules (or engage in deception), and I want others to tell me I'm not bad for doing so" issue.

There's always been books one could not buy for a variety of reasons. The fact that ebooks/eretailers make it easier to leap that hurdle doesn't affect the legality/morality of said action one bit.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

No. It's not. It's an "I'm going to break the rules (or engage in deception), and I want others to tell me I'm not bad for doing so" issue.

There's always been books one could not buy for a variety of reasons. The fact that ebooks/eretailers make it easier to leap that hurdle doesn't affect the legality/morality of said action one bit.

I really don't see how "one must follow the rules!" equates with moral. Legality and morality are two very, very different things. Legality is simply who has the most influence over those who make the laws. Morality is a personal matter. Way too many people try to impose their personal views of morality on everyone else.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Way too many people try to impose their personal views of morality on everyone else.

I'm certainly doing nothing of the sort. I don't much care about the morality of others. I just don't want to hear the pointless and incessant excuses about why one particular brand of rule-breaking should be overlooked/excused/justified and another shouldn't. Stop seeking acceptance from others for your (rhetorical) own personal interpretation of when rule-breaking shouldn't be considered immoral.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I really don't see how "one must follow the rules!" equates with moral. Legality and morality are two very, very different things. Legality is simply who has the most influence over those who make the laws. Morality is a personal matter. Way too many people try to impose their personal views of morality on everyone else.

Many people do equate following the rules with morality. You don't. Aren't you trying to impose your view on those who disagree? I'm not saying I don't agree with you, I mostly do. I've said in this forum and others several times that there's a difference in legality and morality. But I feel that those who do think following the rules is the moral thing to do can come by that honestly and I don't try to change their mind.

Barry

[barryem]

I think it's okay to drive 5 miles above the speed limit.

Barry

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by barryem

Many people do equate following the rules with morality. You don't. Aren't you trying to impose your view on those who disagree? I'm not saying I don't agree with you, I mostly do. I've said in this forum and others several times that there's a difference in legality and morality. But I feel that those who do think following the rules is the moral thing to do can come by that honestly and I don't try to change their mind.

Barry

I'm not imposing my morals on anyone, I just reject other people's attempt to push their morals on me. If someone wants to discuss morals, then fine, but I find the idea "but it's the law" or "rules are rules" very unconvincing.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by barryem

I think it's okay to drive 5 miles above the speed limit.

Barry

You criminal you! [it's actually a bit of an inside joke from a different board]

[crich70]

I believe that ebook piracy is morally reprehensible. You would not walk into a bookstore or secondhand bookstore and steal a book, because you do not want to pay for it or cannot afford to buy it. The same goes with digital, stealing is stealing. You are fundamentally an amoral person if you engage in theft.

Very true, but then ebook vendors claim that they only 'license' their ebooks to people. Without warning they can remove ebooks that you have bought from your account. I don't recall any physical bookstore or secondhand bookstore that sends out people to reclaim books that I've purchased in good faith. So how is it stealing if/when I was to do that but not stealing when the ebook vendor decides to remove a book from my account that I have paid for? Especially if they don't give me anything in return. Should they be able to keep the $ that I paid for that book? Isn't taking $ for a product and then taking the product back the equivalent of theft in itself?

[crich70]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I'm not imposing my morals on anyone, I just reject other people's attempt to push their morals on me. If someone wants to discuss morals, then fine, but I find the idea "but it's the law" or "rules are rules" very unconvincing.

Sometimes what is legally right and what is morally right are two different things. In WWII Germany it was legally right for Hitler's followers to smash up stores owned by those of Jewish descent. After all they were 'just Jews' right? But just because it was legally right in the eyes of the law didn't make it morally right. And life has never been simple enough to be just black and white. There are almost always shades of grey in between.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I really don't see how "one must follow the rules!" equates with moral. Legality and morality are two very, very different things. Legality is simply who has the most influence over those who make the laws. Morality is a personal matter. Way too many people try to impose their personal views of morality on everyone else.

To a certain degree I agree that what is moral is subjective, but is it ever right to murder another person for example? If it is then who decides who is allowed to kill and who is to be killed by them? How are those who decide such things chosen/appointed? By whom? Some issues of morality sweep across ethnic/ gender lines.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by crich70

To a certain degree I agree that what is moral is subjective, but is it ever right to murder another person for example? If it is then who decides who is allowed to kill and who is to be killed by them? How are those who decide such things chosen/appointed? By whom? Some issues of morality sweep across ethnic/ gender lines.

That's of course, the classic moral question. Murder, is a legal term. If you mean is it ever right to kill another person, most would agree that killing someone who is attacking you is considered self defense rather than murder. In the US, it's generally considered moral to do so. Other moral systems say that it's never moral to kill. Personally, I consider killing to protect yourself or others morally acceptable. I've never had to do so and hope the situation never comes up personally.

[Timboli]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I'm not imposing my morals on anyone, I just reject other people's attempt to push their morals on me. If someone wants to discuss morals, then fine, but I find the idea "but it's the law" or "rules are rules" very unconvincing.

Totally agree.

Who is it that makes up the rules and why? Those are the real important questions.

Most rules and laws to me, are just guidelines, and whether I follow them or not is often based on whether they make sense to me or whether I can respect those making them ... and whether I can get away with not doing so, providing my conscience has no issue.

It is a slippery slope though, and often it is better to go along with things even if you don't entirely agree with them. What is okay for you, might not be okay for others. A lot of laws and rules go via the lowest common denominator.

Take speeding for instance. For most people, going 5 miles an hour over the speed limit is just fine, but there are plenty of drivers out there who should not do so. You also need to consider all sorts of factors, from weather to road conditions, to driver abilities, to age, to health, etc etc. Unfortunately, because we believe in the value of independence, many drive who probably should not ... especially in old age, with poor eyesight and slow reaction times.

[issybird]

Back on topic, please. Further comments about life-and-death morality will be deleted.

[Timboli]

At the end of the day, whether you obey Laws or Rules, is entirely your own Democratic choice. If your own code (morals & ethics) allows you to break them, that is your decision, and you are on your own. Do so at your own risk, without the justification from others.

Rules are meant to be broken, so they say, and I certainly do so if I feel the need and can justify it to myself. I do not need others to agree with me or support me.

Many rules I find ludicrous. You are required to make judgments all the time, but now and then someone makes a rule that says you cannot use your judgment, even though your judgment is more than capable of dealing with a situation.

I particularly hate rules and laws that dehumanize you, expect you to be a good little robot, where you are only allowed to think, when they say you can.

[Timboli]

Originally Posted by issybird

Back on topic, please. Further comments about life-and-death morality will be deleted.

Sorry, just noticed after my post. I am a slow typist.