By this logic, buying paperback books second hand is also unprincipled and cheap, no?
Which is a nice segue into a related topic, that by instituting DRM, publishers have removed the possibility for consumers to buy a book, read it once, and, knowing they will not want to read it again, decide to resell it for some of the value so they can buy more books.
None of this makes piracy ethical. But the whole system is rife with unethical practices, participating in almost any way is a quandary. The choice of simply not consuming literature and technical knowledge with the benefits of modern technology is not a perfect solution, for the individual nor society, either.
Yeah that’s an interesting angle. I don’t think buying secondhand books is cheap, because you are paying _someone_. Good question as to the morality of it re: author incomes. Paying no one and still getting whatever you want is what’s cheap.
At least somebody bought that book first. And before you say something like, "Wull, somebody had to buy a DRM book and strip the DRM out," think about the economies of scale we're talking about. The last thing is, buying used books is legal, which does put a dent in the "unprincipled" part of your argument.
Do you really mean to imply absolute adherence to the law, even unenforced laws, is a requirement to be a principled person? Does that mean all laws in all countries or are the laws of your country the most principled ones?
In some US cities it is literally illegal to feed the homeless. In every US city it is illegal to go on mile over the speed limit. In some countries it is illegal to not turn in your neighbors for being gay.
Nope I'm not implying that, but you certainly inferred it. Legality is one marker you can use when deciding ethics, especially in a democratic country. Also we're talking about the permissive side of the law (reselling used books), not the restrictive side (not being allowed to feed homeless people).
Maybe: "In some US cities it is literally legal to apply eminent domain to kick people out of their houses to enlarge a freeway" would be a better slippery slope, but that's still a totally different power dynamic.
So yeah I dunno. Try to come up with a better analogy, but definitely keep to your slippery slope. It'll convince somebody.
Easy. DRM restricts freedom and privacy in ways I find intolerable and will not financially support. Borrowing, piracy, and buying first or secondhand paper books does not have these problems.
Which is a nice segue into a related topic, that by instituting DRM, publishers have removed the possibility for consumers to buy a book, read it once, and, knowing they will not want to read it again, decide to resell it for some of the value so they can buy more books.
None of this makes piracy ethical. But the whole system is rife with unethical practices, participating in almost any way is a quandary. The choice of simply not consuming literature and technical knowledge with the benefits of modern technology is not a perfect solution, for the individual nor society, either.