Oh the irony...

[haertig]

Originally Posted by leebase

I made the assertion....stealing is immoral. It is.

Whose definition of stealing? Yours?

But even if we totally agreed on the definition in all cases, do circumstances matter?

If you stole a loaf of bread to feed your children because you had exhausted all other legal means to obtain food, would you be immoral? Personally, I would not consider you to be.

[leebase]

The lengths people will go to....if you pirate a book, you’ve stolen it. It’s immoral even if I’ve done it too. Even if everyone from my generation pirated music....at least we all knew we were stealing. I’m bothered less by people pirating than by those who would attempt to make stealing moral or amoral. It’s immoral.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by leebase

I never used fact or truth. I made the assertion....stealing is immoral. It is.

I don't believe that I ever said that I was replying to your post, did I?

Originally Posted by haertig

Whose definition of stealing? Yours?

But even if we totally agreed on the definition in all cases, do circumstances matter?

If you stole a loaf of bread to feed your children because you had exhausted all other legal means to obtain food, would you be immoral? Personally, I would not consider you to be.

Moral relativism by definition, really. I'm sure that the dad who steals food to feed his kids doesn't have a lot of guilt over it--but on the other hand, sociopaths that con the elderly out of their money have no guilt at all, so...all we're left with is that we all agree, as a people, that theft is wrong.

All we can do, in passing judgement on those who do is take their particular circumstances into consideration. We can't decide, in toto, that "all" people who are allegedly stealing due to dire circumstances or "need" are acquitted sans discussion or trial. So, we do the best we can, on a basically case-by-case basis. Realistically, what's the alternative to that?

So, what was the topic, again?

Hitch

[Question Mark]

Originally Posted by Hitch

so...all we're left with is that we all agree, as a people, that theft is wrong.

Very interesting discussion going on here.

Just to add to it... Is it wrong to steal something from someone that that someone has stolen? In other words, if the thing which you are "stealing" didn't really belong to the person whom it was stolen from, and, if they had obtained it by illegal means, and, if you were doing it to right a wrong, would it still be stealing...

Now getting back to the topic of this thread, not only had pirating apparently happened, but the pirates then apparently deliberately profited from their plunder. They then apparently had the audacity to react in mock outrage at such behaviour on the part of others...

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by Question Mark

Just to add to it... Is it wrong to steal something from someone that that someone has stolen? In other words, if the thing which you are "stealing" didn't really belong to the person whom it was stolen from, and, if they had obtained it by illegal means, and, if you were doing it to right a wrong, would it still be stealing...

Legally, yes. It is called receiving stolen property. Not technically considered theft as you did not steal it from the rightful owner. Receiving stolen property may not apply, but possession of stolen property would. How are you going to steal it? By breaking and entering? That by itself is a crime.

If it is legally wrong, it should be considered morally wrong as well.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

If it is legally wrong, it should be considered morally wrong as well.

Certainly not. Do you consider removing the DRM from your purchased books and format-shift them to read on another device morally wrong? It's legally wrong in many countries.

The world is full of stupid laws, which should not be blindly followed just because they're there.

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

If it is legally wrong, it should be considered morally wrong as well.

I am sure a lot of people will not agree with this. To reductio ad absurdum it would make breaking any petty bureaucratic regulation enacted into law, which 99% of people do not agree with, should be considered immoral. There are many such petty regulations in modern life.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

If it is legally wrong, it should be considered morally wrong as well.

Only if the law is morally right.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Certainly not. Do you consider removing the DRM from your purchased books and format-shift them to read on another device morally wrong? It's legally wrong in many countries.

The world is full of stupid laws, which should not be blindly followed just because they're there.

There is no country I know of where removing of DRM is considered legal. In the ones where it is undecided, it is still morally wrong, because you willfully abuse a loophole.

Only because everybody breaks a law, does not make it stupid. Adultery, for example, is either a misdemeanor or felony in the US (depending on state). That is a law that shouldn't need to be there, because it shouldn't even happen. And yet it gets broken regularly. Why? Because it is now morally acceptable to break laws you consider immoral? If you try justify adultery with any moral reasons, then you might as well be accused of hypocrisy.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Only if the law is morally right.

In the sense of stealing, it is. I don't consider it morally ok to play Robin Hood.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

There is no country I know of where removing of DRM is considered legal. In the ones where it is undecided, it is still morally wrong, because you willfully abuse a loophole.

I do not believe it is illegal* to remove DRM from a product that one has legally obtained in either the USA or the UK. Would you care to give a reference to either a USA or UK law that you believe states that it is?

Although even if it were illegal* to remove DRM from a product that one has legally obtained, in my opinion it is not immoral.

It is illegal** in the UK to take a music CD that one owns and copy the data representing the music onto a computer. But I don't think that that is immoral either.



* criminally illegal - i.e. a crime for which the government could prosecute you.
** civilly illegal - i.e. a deed for which the copyright holder could bring a civil case against you

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

There is no country I know of where removing of DRM is considered legal. In the ones where it is undecided, it is still morally wrong, because you willfully abuse a loophole.

Only because everybody breaks a law, does not make it stupid. Adultery, for example, is either a misdemeanor or felony in the US (depending on state). That is a law that shouldn't need to be there, because it shouldn't even happen. And yet it gets broken regularly. Why? Because it is now morally acceptable to break laws you consider immoral? If you try justify adultery with any moral reasons, then you might as well be accused of hypocrisy.

I personally don't believe in morality at all and thinking in those terms is alien to me. Whether one should or shouldn't engage in adultery depends on the people involved and the situation . But I consider it ridiculous and stupid to regulate it by law.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Adultery, for example, is either a misdemeanor or felony in the US (depending on state). That is a law that shouldn't need to be there, because it shouldn't even happen. And yet it gets broken regularly. Why? Because it is now morally acceptable to break laws you consider immoral? If you try justify adultery with any moral reasons, then you might as well be accused of hypocrisy.

Adultery has not been illegal in the UK since 1857. It really shouldn't be illegal in the US.

But secret adultery is certainly immoral.

Immoral is not the same as illegal. Nor is one a subset of the other.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I do not believe it is illegal* to remove DRM from a product that one has legally obtained in either the USA or the UK. Would you care to give a reference to either a USA or UK law that you believe states that it is?
[...]
* criminally illegal - i.e. a crime for which the government could prosecute you.
** civilly illegal - i.e. a deed for which the copyright holder could bring a civil case against you

By the first definition of illegal, no, by the second, yes.

Generally:
Removing DRM necessarily involves making a copy of the product. You are only allowed to do that within the parameters the copyright owner has set out. Unless they have allowed DRM removal, you are violating their copyright by making your DRM-free derivative work.
Same issues as ripping CDs to MP3s.

Specifically:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/...egulation-24-1

Circumvention of technological measures
296ZA—(1) This section applies where—

(a)effective technological measures have been applied to a copyright work other than a computer program; and
(b)a person (B) does anything which circumvents those measures knowing, or with reasonable grounds to know, that he is pursuing that objective.

This is an implementation of Article 6 of the European Copyright Directive:

Article 6
Obligations as to technological measures
1. Member States shall provide adequate legal protection against the circumvention of any effective technological measures, which the person concerned carries out in the knowledge, or with reasonable grounds to know, that he or she is pursuing that objective.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I do not believe it is illegal* to remove DRM from a product that one has legally obtained in either the USA or the UK. Would you care to give a reference to either a USA or UK law that you believe states that it is?

Although even if it were illegal* to remove DRM from a product that one has legally obtained, in my opinion it is not immoral.

It is illegal** in the UK to take a music CD that one owns and copy the data representing the music onto a computer. But I don't think that that is immoral either.



* criminally illegal - i.e. a crime for which the government could prosecute you.
** civilly illegal - i.e. a deed for which the copyright holder could bring a civil case against you

The DMCA makes it illegal here in the US. The really big question is whether Fair Use applies to make an exception for ebooks and personal use.