What do you think about circumventing geographic restrictions?

[Geralt]

I love how people are so literal on this forum. I'm sure JSWolf knows they are selling a license. He was simply pointing out the deception on part of the seller not choosing to have click to download licence button instead of click to buy button.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by joehunt

Wrong.



http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custom...deId=201014950

The legal boilerplate that a retailer attaches to something isn't the last word at all. It really comes down to what the courts say. Right now the license verse own question is still very much up in the air.

[treadlightly]

I do it under the following two conditions:
a) the ebook isn't available for purchase in my country
b) the price is significantly higher (i.e. >20%) if purchased in my country

[ebusinesstutor]

I agree that geographic restrictions on books, movies and tv shows are a historical artifact from the days where you needed additional distribution channels in each country,

Now, with the Internet able to deliver nearly everywhere, geographic restrictions make no sense. I think in 10-15 years, we will see them largely disappear.

[murg]

If an author or publisher wants to do the geo-restriction thing, that's their right.

However, it is also my right to shop where ever I want to. I have no contract with the publisher.

If the seller is uninterested in putting in sufficient effort to determine that, according to their contract with the publisher, I'm ineligible to buy the ebook from them, then that's their problem.

The publishers could have resolved this issue, and the piracy issue, a long time ago by requiring a physical token per ebook, they decided not to pursue this.

[Shades]

Originally Posted by joehunt

Wrong.



http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custom...deId=201014950

An EULA or ToS agreement has no bearing on actual law. Remember, your local law overrules any agreement/contract that is deemed illegal.

[danskmacabre]

Interestingly, the Australian Government actively encourages people to bypass Geo-restrictions on sales.
Largely due to artificially high prices for ebooks (and many other products) in Australia.

Here's a link to an article about that.
http://www.teleread.com/copy-right/a...from-overseas/

[darryl]

Originally Posted by GERGE

It is a moral issue because you are breaching a contract. When I signed up with Amazon, I agreed to abide to their rules; then I lied about where I live to buy English ebooks. This is clearly immoral

No. A breach of contract is not of itself immoral. Nor is lying of itself immoral. The particular breach of contract or lie and its context is what determines the moral or ethical character. Statutes and contracts are creatures of law, and whilst the two may sometimes co-exist, not of morality.

[darryl]

One assumption frequently made in this thread which has received little scrutiny is the idea that the owner of the intellectual property has, morally, the unfettered right to deal with the work in question as they see fit. This unfettered right is irrespective of the morality of that dealing, and even extends to dealings that are themselves discriminatory or otherwise morally and ethically questionable. Many here would, for instance, be up in arms and rightly so if an author sought to deny their work or charge a higher price on the basis of, say, ethnicity or sex. I would suggest that it is clear that a rights holder is not morally entitled to deal with their work in this way, even if they could do so legally. It is not as simple as saying they are the owner, they can do absolutely anything they like with their own work and it is okay morally and ethically.

Personally, I think that an author has the moral right to withhold their work from the market completely. I do not think they have any moral right to discriminate amongst readers on the basis of where they happen to live in this world, irrespective of the particular laws involved. Remember, we are talking morality, not legality. Nor, if they seek to do so, do I think it is immoral or unethical to circumvent such discrimination by circumventing the geographical restrictions, irrespective of whether this is legal in the particular jurisdictions involved.

[crich70]

I stick to my own geo. for a simple enough reason. I have a limited budget and want to make sure that I have the right amount deducted from my account when I update my budget. If something costs 5 pounds, euro's etc. how do I know that it's the same as $5.00 in the U.S.?

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by crich70

I stick to my own geo. for a simple enough reason. I have a limited budget and want to make sure that I have the right amount deducted from my account when I update my budget. If something costs 5 pounds, euro's etc. how do I know that it's the same as $5.00 in the U.S.?

http://www.xe.com/. It won't add in the extra charges when you have a crappy credit card that charges you 3% for doing absolutely nothing, just because Visa or Mastercard converted the currency to your currency.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by darryl

One assumption frequently made in this thread which has received little scrutiny is the idea that the owner of the intellectual property has, morally, the unfettered right to deal with the work in question as they see fit. This unfettered right is irrespective of the morality of that dealing, and even extends to dealings that are themselves discriminatory or otherwise morally and ethically questionable. Many here would, for instance, be up in arms and rightly so if an author sought to deny their work or charge a higher price on the basis of, say, ethnicity or sex. I would suggest that it is clear that a rights holder is not morally entitled to deal with their work in this way, even if they could do so legally. It is not as simple as saying they are the owner, they can do absolutely anything they like with their own work and it is okay morally and ethically.

Personally, I think that an author has the moral right to withhold their work from the market completely. I do not think they have any moral right to discriminate amongst readers on the basis of where they happen to live in this world, irrespective of the particular laws involved. Remember, we are talking morality, not legality. Nor, if they seek to do so, do I think it is immoral or unethical to circumvent such discrimination by circumventing the geographical restrictions, irrespective of whether this is legal in the particular jurisdictions involved.

In most cases, it's not that the author is exercising moral rights to limit distribution, it's because the big multinational publishers have a screwy system where a publisher in the author's home country buys the rights for that region, and then it's hit or miss as to whether publishers in any other region end up buying it. In general, the publishers like to repackage the book for their region, which is why there's often a different cover for the same book in the US, UK, and Australia. The cost of repackaging the book is probably why some books are only released in one region, the publishers in the other regions decide that it probably won't sell enough to make a profit on the repackaging and author payments.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

In most cases, it's not that the author is exercising moral rights to limit distribution, it's because the big multinational publishers have a screwy system where a publisher in the author's home country buys the rights for that region, and then it's hit or miss as to whether publishers in any other region end up buying it. In general, the publishers like to repackage the book for their region, which is why there's often a different cover for the same book in the US, UK, and Australia. The cost of repackaging the book is probably why some books are only released in one region, the publishers in the other regions decide that it probably won't sell enough to make a profit on the repackaging and author payments.

Understood. And with physical books, there is no problem with an individual buying a copy overseas. In the case of ebooks they seek to prevent this. And "repackaging" an ebook is unnecessary, and the costs minimal in any event.

Once again, there seems to be nothing immoral or unethical in circumventing any geographical restrictions.

[cromag]

I don't do it, but I'm in the US where the available selection means it's not as big a factor.

But, I would like to point out that circumventing geo restrictions is commonplace for physical products. One case: A few years ago I was looking for a specific music album -- Evergreen Vol. 2, by the Stone Poneys, Linda Ronstadt's first band. A limited release had been made in the US, it sold out immediately, and "used" copies on Amazon were priced at several hundred dollars. The album was available as MP3s in Europe, but the MP3s were geo-restricted so I couldn't buy them. But, the album had been released as a CD in Australia as part of a 2-CD set. There was a vendor offering the Australian CD sets on Amazon (US) for about what a "domestic" double CD set would have cost. So I bought the album on Amazon (US) even though Amazon (US) couldn't sell it to me.

Nothing immoral about it, just insanely stoopid.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by treadlightly

I do it under the following two conditions:
a) the ebook isn't available for purchase in my country
b) the price is significantly higher (i.e. >20%) if purchased in my country

This. And I don't feel bad about it at all. If a publisher in my region is too stupid to not sell the book to me, yet still somehow has the right to it (and thus prevents another publisher from selling it to me), then it's their problem. Not mine.