4 ms·

Your reasons are very subjective and calling someone an idiot is always offensive whether you apologize in advance or not. Anyways, I like e-books because, for

Your reasons are very subjective and calling someone an idiot is always offensive whether you apologize in advance or not. Anyways, I like e-books because, for me, the mobility advantage is huge and I'm less concerned about lending them to friends. The only reason I buy them from Amazon, as opposed to torrenting, is to support the author. I wish I could do that without Amazon but they do provide a useful service allowing me to buy and sync books from any device. And once I remove the DRM I would certainly say that ebooks are superior to physical books for me.

run4yourlives 14y ago
First, you don't buy e-books, you rent them. The book doesn't really belong to you at all, as this article points out. Second, you not only pay more to support your behaviour, you break the law for it as well. (Note: I'm not a supporter of this law, but it is nonetheless true.) I'm sorry but I cannot see how the average person sees this as a net positive. You are by definition acting in an idiotic manner. Idiot: - a mentally deficient person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way. I'm using the second meaning, of course.
- lukifer 14y ago
  There are several stores that sell content legally in DRM-free ePub, such as ebooks.com, not to mention all of the public domain content from Project Gutenberg. Moreover, I think consumers who have purchased a legal copy of a physical or DRM'd book have the moral authority to torrent a matching non-DRM copy, legal technicalities be damned. Please don't try to paint everyone with the same brush, or resort to name-calling. Techies usually understand the trade-offs and risks, and non-techies simply need to be educated.
  - run4yourlives 14y ago
    >legal technicalities be damned. I think the moment anyone says this, I'm well within the realm of normality to question that person's judgement making abilities. I happen to agree with you, but to simply ignore the fact that you need to break the law to make the value equation work in your favour is pretty much, well, idiotic.
    - lukifer 14y ago
      I'm of the opinion that the burden of proof is upon the law to justify its existence, and that I as a free sentient being have a right and/or responsibility to ignore any law that does not meet that burden of proof, and accept the consequences of doing so. The fear of death is the beginning of slavery.
- awfabian2 14y ago
  You actually can't make that assertion in confidence. To do so, you have to measure the utility of the benefits to a given individual, and the utility of the money they spend on it, and quantify the risk of Amazon revoking/pulling the content. As hard as it might be for you to believe, your subjective worldview is not absolute reality, and not everyone shares your world-view and definition of utility, so you can't actually judge whether their actions are self-defeating for them.
- Lukeas14 14y ago
  Once again, just because the benefits don't outweigh the costs for you does not mean it can't be a net positive for other people. eBooks have resulted in me reading twice the number of books I would've read otherwise and I've never bought an ebook that costs more than the physical copy. Explain to me how that is counterproductive or self-defeating. Laws are simply the consequences you face if you get caught performing behavior deemed illegal. The chances of someone being punished for removing the DRM from an eBook are essentially nil (provided you're not sharing it).

run4yourlives 14y ago

First, you don't buy e-books, you rent them. The book doesn't really belong to you at all, as this article points out. Second, you not only pay more to support your behaviour, you break the law for it as well. (Note: I'm not a supporter of this law, but it is nonetheless true.) I'm sorry but I cannot see how the average person sees this as a net positive. You are by definition acting in an idiotic manner. Idiot: - a mentally deficient person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way. I'm using the second meaning, of course.

lukifer 14y ago
There are several stores that sell content legally in DRM-free ePub, such as ebooks.com, not to mention all of the public domain content from Project Gutenberg. Moreover, I think consumers who have purchased a legal copy of a physical or DRM'd book have the moral authority to torrent a matching non-DRM copy, legal technicalities be damned. Please don't try to paint everyone with the same brush, or resort to name-calling. Techies usually understand the trade-offs and risks, and non-techies simply need to be educated.
- run4yourlives 14y ago
  >legal technicalities be damned. I think the moment anyone says this, I'm well within the realm of normality to question that person's judgement making abilities. I happen to agree with you, but to simply ignore the fact that you need to break the law to make the value equation work in your favour is pretty much, well, idiotic.
  - lukifer 14y ago
    I'm of the opinion that the burden of proof is upon the law to justify its existence, and that I as a free sentient being have a right and/or responsibility to ignore any law that does not meet that burden of proof, and accept the consequences of doing so. The fear of death is the beginning of slavery.
awfabian2 14y ago
You actually can't make that assertion in confidence. To do so, you have to measure the utility of the benefits to a given individual, and the utility of the money they spend on it, and quantify the risk of Amazon revoking/pulling the content. As hard as it might be for you to believe, your subjective worldview is not absolute reality, and not everyone shares your world-view and definition of utility, so you can't actually judge whether their actions are self-defeating for them.
Lukeas14 14y ago
Once again, just because the benefits don't outweigh the costs for you does not mean it can't be a net positive for other people. eBooks have resulted in me reading twice the number of books I would've read otherwise and I've never bought an ebook that costs more than the physical copy. Explain to me how that is counterproductive or self-defeating. Laws are simply the consequences you face if you get caught performing behavior deemed illegal. The chances of someone being punished for removing the DRM from an eBook are essentially nil (provided you're not sharing it).