Oh the irony...

[DiapDealer]

I find that nearly every claim that something is definitively immoral usually serves to shine a bright light on the likelihood that there is no such thing as "definitively immoral."

I'm not saying there's no such thing as immorality. I'm only saying that it's a moving target that can't (by it's very nature) be objectively pointed at as such by everyone, everywhere, at any time.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by leebase

If you can’t understand that stealing is immoral...that’s not my problem. I accept the judgement label. It is appropriate....and it is moral.

But a large portion of the population, probably a majority, doesn't consider copyright violation stealing. You say it's stealing because copyright is part of our tradition and because the IP movement promotes that particular narrative. I would tend to argue that copyright violation isn't stealing, it's mostly a civil matter rather than a criminal matter.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

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.

Thanks for the link. I think my point stands. The government will not take you to court for removing DRM from something you have obtained legally.

That the copyright holder might do so is true but, as mentioned, the same is true of ripping CDs.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

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.

No, it is an example of a stupid law that is moral. If you go ahead and break it anyway, then it is because you are immoral, not because the law itself is immoral.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

No, it is an example of a stupid law that is moral.

Facts not in evidence (not the stupid part).

Heck there's not even a universally agreed upon definition of adultery. I'm assuming, of course, that you're not relying merely on a legal definition of adultery since you claim any legal censure of the act is stupid. I can assure you that the moral notions of what constitutes adultery, vary quite a bit.

[issybird]

I'll note in passing that adultery is not a crime, not even a misdemeanor, in the majority of US states.

[Tony1988]

Oh my God...three pages of discussing what is amoral, immoral and a crime. Jesus Christ I miss the old days when people just bought the damn paper book. This entire topic (or lack) shouldn't even be a concern. It's not hard to understand people, if you want to keep the book until your last breath just buy the paper version. Lend it out as much as you like. No worries about finagling on your computer All day because you are worried that someone may take away a book you will most likely never read more than once.

Bottom line is we All know why there is worry about ebooks and copyright. It was different with paper books. So I totally understand an authors and publishers standpoint. Plain and simple.

Damn life was easier with paperbooks and actually a bit more fun imo...

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Tony1988

Oh my God...three pages of discussing what is amoral, immoral and a crime. Jesus Christ I miss the old days when people just bought the damn paper book.

Well, heck. It's just entertainment. No one's forcing you to read three pages of posts that bore you, irritate you, and far worst of all, provide yet more evidence that someone's wrong on the internet!

No worries about finagling on your computer All day because you are worried that someone may take away a book you will most likely never read more than once.

...and that said, I rather agree with you about this. I got over managing and massaging my library a long time ago. It's not worth the time. The books I buy/have bought show up on my devices. Done. And there's very little I'll ever want to reread at that, and there will always be books I can access. But it doesn't bother me that others spend their time on it.

[Tony1988]

Originally Posted by issybird

Well, heck. It's just entertainment. No one's forcing you to read three pages of posts that bore you, irritate you, and far worst of all, provide yet more evidence that someone's wrong on the internet!



...and that said, I rather agree with you about this. I got over managing and massaging my library a long time ago. It's not worth the time. The books I buy/have bought show up on my devices. Done. And there's very little I'll ever want to reread at that, and there will always be books I can access. But it doesn't bother me that others spend their time on it.

No that's great if someone likes to spend their time with that. But this thread shows what ebooks has wrought. It most certainly is no all good. I'm fact it's continually tipping towards more bad than good imo.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by Tony1988

No that's great if someone likes to spend their time with that. But this thread shows what ebooks has wrought. It most certainly is no all good. I'm fact it's continually tipping towards more bad than good imo.

Just because people are arguing about it? People who enjoy debate will always find something to debate about. I'm not sure this discussion indicates much at all about what ebooks have wrought. For the majority of people who use them, they just buy / borrow them and read them. No muss, no fuss, no philosophical discussions.

Like issybird, I've long ago stopped "managing" my collection. For me, it wasn't even about being worried that someone would take my books away, it was just something I enjoyed fiddling with, a hobby. When I lost interest in the digital futzing, I just stopped doing it. And since then, I've mostly stopped purchasing books anyway, so my collection hasn't grown much in the last few years. I use KU and the library for 95% of my reads.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

Like issybird, I've long ago stopped "managing" my collection. For me, it wasn't even about being worried that someone would take my books away, it was just something I enjoyed fiddling with, a hobby. When I lost interest in the digital futzing, I just stopped doing it.

I'm in that same camp. I read them. More power to those who want to pet them, massage them, and otherwise bend them to their will. There's plenty of room in this boat.

And "wrought" ? Really?? That's like a hop skip and jump from "rue the day," isn't it?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Tony1988

No that's great if someone likes to spend their time with that. But this thread shows what ebooks has wrought. It most certainly is no all good. I'm fact it's continually tipping towards more bad than good imo.

And now we're having a meta-argument about the arguments provoked by ebooks.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm in that same camp. I read them. More power to those who want to pet them, massage them, and otherwise bend them to their will. There's plenty of room in this boat.

And "wrought" ? Really?? That's like a hop skip and jump from "rue the day," isn't it?

Hey, pal!

I use both those terms all the time. You're makin' me feel bad.

Hitch

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

And "wrought" ? Really?? That's like a hop skip and jump from "rue the day," isn't it?

I thought the latter was made popular again by "Withnail and I". That was certainly true in the crowd I ran with back then.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Hey, pal!

I use both those terms all the time. You're makin' me feel bad.

Hitch

Well so do I. But I only use them ironically.

Spoiler:

How's that for staying on topic?