EU Piracy Report

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Please quote the section of the Amazon's ToS that clearly mentions DRM and its explicit request that I not remove it.

Here you go:

Limitations. Unless specifically indicated otherwise, you may not sell, rent, lease, distribute, broadcast, sublicense, or otherwise assign any rights to the Kindle Content or any portion of it to any third party, and you may not remove or modify any proprietary notices or labels on the Kindle Content. In addition, you may not attempt to bypass, modify, defeat, or otherwise circumvent any digital rights management system or other content protection or features used as part of the Service.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Please quote the section of the Amazon's ToS that clearly mentions DRM and its explicit request that I not remove it.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custo...deId=201014950

Limitations. Unless specifically indicated otherwise, you may not sell, rent, lease, distribute, broadcast, sublicense, or otherwise assign any rights to the Kindle Content or any portion of it to any third party, and you may not remove or modify any proprietary notices or labels on the Kindle Content. In addition, you may not attempt to bypass, modify, defeat, or otherwise circumvent any digital rights management system or other content protection or features used as part of the Service.

Shari

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by shalym

https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custo...deId=201014950



Shari

Hee, hee! It was a race!

[DiapDealer]

Fair enough. As I said, I feel no pressure to try and justify my actions.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Fair enough. As I said, I feel no pressure to try and justify my actions.

Your stated position on lying to circumvent geo-restrictions does seem to be inconsistent with your position on removing DRM. It is your choice whether you wish to discuss this apparent inconsistency further. The only person you have to justify your actions to, if anyone at all, is yourself.

I for one have no problems with removing DRM. Even if I did accept that such removal is morally wrong (which I do not) I would condone it anyway, with no attempt at rationalisation or defence.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by darryl

Your stated position on lying to circumvent geo-restrictions does seem to be inconsistent with your position on removing DRM. It is your choice whether you wish to discuss this apparent inconsistency further. The only person you have to justify your actions to, if anyone at all, is yourself.

No. They're really not inconsistent at all. My main point is that lying--not white lies, not alternate facts, not mis-remembering what one said in the past, not changing ones mind, not breaking an agreement, but an honest-to-goodness "I'm-going-to-consciously-deceive-you-by-telling-you-a-straight-up-A=B-falsehood-so-I-can-get-my-hands-on-an-ebook" lie--is immoral. There's no wiggle-room in that whatsoever. There's no reason, excuse, or justification that can make that lie-for-trivial-gain NOT immoral. Now whether people (including me) care about the immorality involved is another thing entirely.

Tell me that you bypass geo-restrictions by lying about what country you reside in and you don't care if it's immoral or not, then I don't care. You're not trying to convince me that lying is OK.

Tell me you remove DRM and don't care if it's illegal or immoral (the breaking of a contract), then I have no beef.

But try to convince me that lying ISN'T immoral, or that you're somehow JUSTIFIED in removing DRM, or thwarting geo-restrictions, then I take issue. Because it's all morally shady. Own that (not targeting any specific individual here) and I'll shut up.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

No. They're really not inconsistent at all. My main point is that lying--not white lies, not alternate facts, not mis-remembering what one said in the past, not changing ones mind, not breaking an agreement, but an honest-to-goodness "I'm-going-to-consciously-deceive-you-by-telling-you-a-straight-up-A=B-falsehood-so-I-can-get-my-hands-on-an-ebook" lie--is immoral. There's no wiggle-room in that whatsoever. There's no reason, excuse, or justification that can make that lie-for-trivial-gain NOT immoral. Now whether people (including me) care about the immorality involved is another thing entirely.

Tell me that you bypass geo-restrictions by lying about what country you reside in and you don't care if it's immoral or not, then I don't care. You're not trying to convince me that lying is OK.

Tell me you remove DRM and don't care if it's illegal or immoral (the breaking of a contract), then I have no beef.

But try to convince me that lying ISN'T immoral, or that you're somehow JUSTIFIED in removing DRM, or thwarting geo-restrictions, then I take issue. Because it's all morally shady. Own that (not targeting any specific individual here) and I'll shut up.

I "own" that thwarting geo-restrictions is morally shady. I also own that removing DRM is morally shady. I don't believe that *either* of these things are akin to piracy in any way shape or form. I'm not selling illegal copies of the books...I'm not even sharing copies of the books. I'm not obtaining copies of the books without paying for them.

In what way is thwarting geo-restrictions related to piracy?

Shari

[issybird]

Originally Posted by shalym

In what way is thwarting geo-restrictions related to piracy?

It was posited that the only alternative to piracy is thwarting geo-restrictions.

[Cinisajoy]

If I have read the posts correctly, I think it is more of a problem with justifying a blatant lie than the act itself.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by shalym

I "own" that thwarting geo-restrictions is morally shady. I also own that removing DRM is morally shady.

Then we're square.

Originally Posted by shalym

I don't believe that *either* of these things are akin to piracy in any way shape or form.

I don't either. Not inherently, anyway.

Originally Posted by shalym

In what way is thwarting geo-restrictions related to piracy?

I've no idea. I merely jumped in when the topic of the (im)morality of getting around geo-restrictions was brought up. At least one person posited that geo-restriction actually leads to piracy, so therefore, the thwarting of geo-restrictions was "good" because authors still get paid and it prevents someone from having to turn to piracy to get what they want.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

At least one person posited that geo-restriction actually leads to piracy, so therefore,the thwarting of geo-restrictions was "good" because authors still get paid and it prevents someone from having to turn to piracy to get what they want.

I've read through (and contributed to) this whole argument and I still don't see what was wrong with the wolf's original supposition. Geo-restrictions do lead to online piracy (likely not much in the e-book world, but even so).

If you are going to do one or the other, it is better to circumvent geo-restrictions than it is to outright pirate the book.

Diverting it to an argument about the morality of 'travelling' just seems to be muddying the waters for no point. It is no more defensible than stripping DRM. Things aren't black and white. In the end we all deal with shades of gray. 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.

[issybird]

In regard to piracy v. circumventing geo-restrictions, you don't have to do either. Nor can you justify the latter as a moral action.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by issybird

In regard to piracy v. circumventing geo-restrictions, you don't have to do either. Nor can you justify the latter as a moral action.

Same goes for DRM stripping. I can only hope all of those worried about the morality of circumventing geo-restrictions wouldn't dream of removing DRM either. Both are morally questionable actions.

I've never bought an overseas e-book myself. I'm just not looking to climb on my high horse about it.

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I am sure you have heard this one: "since you don't have a "real" job, you should do this for me because I don't have the time and want it."
That one always got eye rolls.

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.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by issybird

In regard to piracy v. circumventing geo-restrictions, you don't have to do either. Nor can you justify the latter as a moral action.

...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.

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

Shari