3 ms·

The article ends with: "Yes, it is ‘wrong’ to pirate. But now, it’s also ‘wrong’ to buy a Kobo book and then unlock it to read on a Kindle. So if one is ‘breaki

The article ends with: "Yes, it is ‘wrong’ to pirate. But now, it’s also ‘wrong’ to buy a Kobo book and then unlock it to read on a Kindle. So if one is ‘breaking the law’ anyway, why not have the free, unlocked copy?" This person is confusing legality with morality. Not breaking the law has to do with not getting punished, whereas not doing things you consider immoral has to do with being a decent person and making the world a better place. Assuming you believe in copyright over digital information, it's clear that paying for the book and breaking the lock on it is a hell of a lot less wrong than quote unquote pirating it.

conradfr 14y ago
Cost / advantages ? Like when I order or go to the stores buying a DVD and get un unskipable anti-piracy video, trailers and ads ... versus taking 10mn to torrent the movie and get it to actually play when I launch it.
- georgeorwell 14y ago
  Assuming you believe digital copyright is moral, sure, buying something and grabbing a torrent anyway is moral even if illegal. Well unless you think uploading is a sin I guess. But the author seemed to be saying that since torrenting something has the same status of 'illegal' as buying it and then breaking the lock, you may as well not buy it in the first place and just torrent it. I just thought this was kind of a specious argument. Personally... I don't like paying for information, it seems artificial.
Jare 14y ago
When the other party behaves in what you can consider an immoral way, it's very easy to disregard a certain amount of morals in relation to them. In this case, the 'other side' is unfortunately a mix of the creators, who may or may not agree with laws like this, and the media lobbies, who have forced this immoral law into existence. I bet most people who have any sort of intellectual or moral stance on copyright and still pirate, would happily pay the creators directly for an un-DRM'd copy. (Note that most people who pirate 'just do it' and are no part of this discussion anyway)
yason 14y ago
You're absolutely correct. Not breaking the law here—that is, buying DRM ebooks or DRM DVDs/BRs—is also getting punished, actually, if not in the legislative sense but in usability sense. So, it makes even better sense to pirate than buy-and-rip. Actually, as a personal anectore I've quit ripping DVDs a long time ago. When I sometimes buy a DVD movie from the sale basket, I don't even bother to rip it. I just torrent it because the unrestricted, compact .avi file without any crap, ads, menus, propaganda and whatnot is what I want.
- aerique 14y ago
  While you're doing the morally right thing by paying for the DVD you are also adding polution to the environment by buying a physical copy (that you do not even use!) just to satisfy a couple of dinosaur corporations that refuse to change. Just adding another dimension to your moral compass ;-)
- kybernetikos 14y ago
  It's not just that, for a popular title if you have a decent network connection, it takes less time to download than to rip.
mtgx 14y ago
I think his point was that the law is immoral, and that's why he'd rather "protest" and pirate the copy, and use it on whatever device he wants.

conradfr 14y ago

Cost / advantages ? Like when I order or go to the stores buying a DVD and get un unskipable anti-piracy video, trailers and ads ... versus taking 10mn to torrent the movie and get it to actually play when I launch it.

georgeorwell 14y ago
Assuming you believe digital copyright is moral, sure, buying something and grabbing a torrent anyway is moral even if illegal. Well unless you think uploading is a sin I guess. But the author seemed to be saying that since torrenting something has the same status of 'illegal' as buying it and then breaking the lock, you may as well not buy it in the first place and just torrent it. I just thought this was kind of a specious argument. Personally... I don't like paying for information, it seems artificial.

Jare 14y ago

When the other party behaves in what you can consider an immoral way, it's very easy to disregard a certain amount of morals in relation to them. In this case, the 'other side' is unfortunately a mix of the creators, who may or may not agree with laws like this, and the media lobbies, who have forced this immoral law into existence. I bet most people who have any sort of intellectual or moral stance on copyright and still pirate, would happily pay the creators directly for an un-DRM'd copy. (Note that most people who pirate 'just do it' and are no part of this discussion anyway)

yason 14y ago

You're absolutely correct. Not breaking the law here—that is, buying DRM ebooks or DRM DVDs/BRs—is also getting punished, actually, if not in the legislative sense but in usability sense. So, it makes even better sense to pirate than buy-and-rip. Actually, as a personal anectore I've quit ripping DVDs a long time ago. When I sometimes buy a DVD movie from the sale basket, I don't even bother to rip it. I just torrent it because the unrestricted, compact .avi file without any crap, ads, menus, propaganda and whatnot is what I want.

aerique 14y ago
While you're doing the morally right thing by paying for the DVD you are also adding polution to the environment by buying a physical copy (that you do not even use!) just to satisfy a couple of dinosaur corporations that refuse to change. Just adding another dimension to your moral compass ;-)
kybernetikos 14y ago
It's not just that, for a popular title if you have a decent network connection, it takes less time to download than to rip.

mtgx 14y ago

I think his point was that the law is immoral, and that's why he'd rather "protest" and pirate the copy, and use it on whatever device he wants.