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

[hollowpoint]

What was the topic again?

Oh yeah, the guy who says you shouldn't pirate ebooks, and does. Or did. Well I for one agree with him: piracy is wrong. Do what he says, not what he does. So he's guilty of being a hypocrassacrit. Or whatever. :-)

Doing things like breaking DRM and obscuring geolocation are definitely breaking some somebody's policy or TOS, and in some regions, the law as well. There's no whitewashing it. But these don't seem quite the same as piracy, which is actual theft. If I break DRM on an ebook and otherwise legally pay for it and only use it for my use, I'm prepared to pay the rather trivial consequences if a retailer decides to lock out my account. But exactly what fundamental moral law have I broken, in that case? I haven't stolen anything, or harmed anyone.

[DiapDealer]

Are you under the impression that morality/immorality only attaches to the legal notions of harm or theft?

Again ... I'm not trying to be the arbiter of what people should or shouldn't do--or what should weigh on their conscience or not. Maybe there's an argument that breaking one rule (that you agree not to break) is less immoral than breaking another. I'll not dispute it. But in general; deception in order to get something you want (but couldn't get without the deception) has moral implications. Saying you're willing to abide by conditions that you know full-well you have no intentions of abiding by, carries moral implications.

You (rhetorical) should be able to personally shoulder the responsibility for such actions without needing validation from others that it "wasn't so bad."

I break some rules. Full stop.
The moral consequences of breaking those rules are mine alone to shoulder/ignore. You can't absolve me/make me feel guilty. Full stop.

No "but if"s. I own it.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I break some rules. Full stop.
The moral consequences of breaking those rules are mine alone to shoulder/ignore. You can't absolve me/make me feel guilty. Full stop.

No "but if"s. I own it.

Exactly.

[hollowpoint]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Are you under the impression that morality/immorality only attaches to the legal notions of harm or theft?

I think there's no denying that doing things like breaking DRM is breaking somebody's rules. But you are confusing breaking a rule with being immoral: those can be, but aren't always, the same thing. Some rules and laws are harmful, evil, or just plain trivial or dumb. Some of those should be disobeyed, resisted, or ignored. An easy example is people during WW II who hid Jews in their homes, against the Nazi rules.

You have to have a moral compass, and a sense of due proportion about these things. Note that there's a difference in degree between breaking a private company's rule, like DRM or walking shoe-less into a restaurant that has a "no shoes no service" sign, versus say, running a concentration camp.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by hollowpoint

But you are confusing breaking a rule with being immoral:

No. I'm not (and can we please, please stop with the all the Godwinization?). I'm not saying anything about BEING (or not being) an moral or immoral person. Those are absolutes that I can't define for others.

I'm saying that indicating you'll abide by rules (stupid or otherwise) that you have no intention of abiding by, has moral implications. Willful deception to get something you want (that you could easily live without) has moral implications.

The actions may not be grave enough to tip the scales and make you (again rhetorical) an Immoral Person, but to deny that there are moral implications in play with these personal decisions is pointless.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by crich70

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?

The thing is that ebook vendors don't do that. There are only 2 situations I'm aware of that even resemble this. Sometimes vendors go out of business. Normally, but not always, they make arrangements with other vendors to keep making purchased books available. B&N didn't do that when they shut down in England but most do. Microsoft recently announced they're shutting down their book service and everyone who bought books is getting a full refund.

The other situation was when someone published a pirated version of "1984" on Amazon and when Amazon realized it they deleted those books from people's Kindles. I don't recall if they offered a refund but my guess is they did. They got very bad PR from that and promised to never do it again, and they've kept that promise.

That's not to say a lot of cheating doesn't happen. Read the back of any book or the description of any ebook and you'll soon find that descriptions rarely match the contents of the book very closely. Reviews are a much better guide. And we've all read stories about publishers cheating authors. But in the ways ebook companies have dealt with customers money I think mostly they've been pretty honest.

Barry

[barryem]

Originally Posted by crich70

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.

I've never heard anyone say that was legal in Germany. Hitler's regime violated and encouraged violation of a lot of German law.

Barry

[barryem]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

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.

I'm not sure killing someone in self defense is right or moral. It might very well be necessary. But I think it would affect my conscience in pretty negative ways.

As soon as we say killing someone is right we're getting dangerous.

If I had to steal food to feed my starving family I wouldn't hesitate. I don't think I'd ever claim it was right. Necessity, morals and legality are different things.

Barry

[DiapDealer]

Moderator Notice
Hitler/Nazi references stop now!

We're not discussing murder, genocide or anything even remotely life or death here. We're talking about ebooks, ebook piracy, and "moral justice" surrounding ebooks and ebook piracy; as mentioned in the GoodEreader article. Please stop with the over-the-top hyperbole and dramatization.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

No. I'm not (and can we please, please stop with the all the Godwinization?). I'm not saying anything about BEING (or not being) an moral or immoral person. Those are absolutes that I can't define for others.

I'm saying that indicating you'll abide by rules (stupid or otherwise) that you have no intention of abiding by, has moral implications. Willful deception to get something you want (that you could easily live without) has moral implications.

The actions may not be grave enough to tip the scales and make you (again rhetorical) an Immoral Person, but to deny that there are moral implications in play with these personal decisions is pointless.

That's if you believe in morality at all. I personally don't.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

That's if you believe in morality at all. I personally don't.

Fair enough. In that case you probably wouldn't be putting forth any justification/excuses or seeking any validation/acceptance for your particular brand of rule-breaking to begin with. Which is exactly what I'm suggesting should be the status quo. Make your own decision, and leave me and the rest of the world out of it.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Fair enough. In that case you probably wouldn't be putting forth any justification/excuses or seeking any validation/acceptance for your particular brand of rule-breaking to begin with. Which is exactly what I'm suggesting should be the status quo. Make your own decision, and leave me and the rest of the world out of it.

Yep, I agree with you. Seeking others' validation for your actions, rule-breaking or not, has always seemed pretty pointless to me, because everyone has different values and views anyway. I've seen people become bitter and stressed out, because they constantly expect others to share their views, and so are constantly disappointed. Naturally I've done so occasionally myself, that's human nature. But generally I try to live my life without depending on the acceptance of others. Of course I'm also pretty reclusive by nature, so it's easy for me. Probably would be hard for very outgoing and sociable people.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Yep, I agree with you. Seeking others' validation for your actions, rule-breaking or not, has always seemed pretty pointless to me, because everyone has different values and views anyway. I've seen people become bitter and stressed out, because they constantly expect others to share their views, and so are constantly disappointed. Naturally I've done so occasionally myself, that's human nature. But generally I try to live my life without depending on the acceptance of others. Of course I'm also pretty reclusive by nature, so it's easy for me. Probably would be hard for very outgoing and sociable people.

I think some may be seeking validation, but I also think that some of it is simply discussion. It's hard to have a reasonable discussion without explaining what you think and why.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I think some may be seeking validation, but I also think that some of it is simply discussion. It's hard to have a reasonable discussion without explaining what you think and why.

I suspect in most cases it's both, and it's hard to say where the dividing line exactly is. Also when one explains one's reasons, it almost inevitably comes off as justification (is there even a real difference between the two?), and there's very little one can do about it, except not explaining anything at all. And in that case there'll be indeed very little discussion.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I suspect in most cases it's both, and it's hard to say where the dividing line exactly is. Also when one explains one's reasons, it almost inevitably comes off as justification (is there even a real difference between the two?), and there's very little one can do about it, except not explaining anything at all. And in that case there'll be indeed very little discussion.

Not explaining themselves does seem to be some posters default approach and then being huffy when asked to explain themselves.

I think that morality with regards to violating copyright law really does depend a lot on

1) if one is a letter of the law verses spirit of the law type
2) How one views copyright, i.e. the author's personal property or a government granted limited monopoly
3) if one even accepts the validity of copyright.
4) what one views as the purpose of copyright, if one even cares about the purpose (see rules are rules post above)

I tend to view copyright as purely a method of making sure that authors get paid and thus are encouraged to write more books (i.e. "To Promote the progress of science and useful arts..."). Thus my moral approach to copyright violation is predicated on that. As long as the author gets paid, I don't care about violating geo restrictions. As long as the author gets paid, I don't care about removing DRM or making backup copies for archival purposes (both of which may or may not be allowed under the US fair use doctrine). I think that orphaned works should be made available in some way, shape or fashion. For that matter, I think that all copyright books should be available to the buying public at a reasonable price (a technical term). If they aren't available, then the copyright of that work isn't promoting the progress of useful arts, in my opinion. Others may disagree, but that's how I approach the morality of copyright and ebooks.